Zopyrion, governor of Thracia in Macedonian service

Thracia had been annexed by Philip II in his efforts to extend the power of the Macedonian kingdom and to safeguard its borders. After his death, Alexander had to stamp his authority and his rule over the many tribes once again, all the way to the mighty Danube River to protect his back before setting out to Asia. 

One would expect the northern tribes to live happily ever after, especially since Alexander took a substantial contingent of Thracians with him as far as India and back under the command of their general Sitalces (see: Sitalces, commander of the Thracians). 

However, the many Thracian tribes never united and kept fighting among themselves, putting their individual interests above all. It was one of Antipater’s tasks, as Regent of Macedonia, to enforce the peace. 

[Helmet from Zopyrion's army, found in Olanesti, Moldova]

Ancient historians have left us very little information about what happened in Alexander’s homeland while he moved further east. One governor of Thrace is known as Zopyrion. His name caught my attention after seeing the picture of a helmet found in Olanesti, Moldova, that is linked to Zopyrion’s army. 

Unfortunately, the only reliable source of Zopyrion comes from Curtius. He simply stated that the governor made an expedition against the Getae and that his army was overwhelmed by sudden tempests and gales. He allegedly lost 30,000 men - a figure that is probably exaggerated. At that time, about 324 BC, Alexander was in Persia facing the misconduct of many satraps he had left in charge before moving on to Central Asia. 

However, another, much less trustworthy story is told by Justin. This one circulates widely on the internet, mostly repeating the content of the Wikipedia page. 

Justin, in full Marcus Junianus Justinus, probably lived in the 2nd/3rd century AD and got hold of the 44 books called the Philippic Histories by Pompeius Trogus that are now lost. Justin decided that Trogus’ history was far too voluminous, and he wrote his own abridged version. Sadly, accuracy was not Justin’s strong point, and he was not very concerned about his sources or the chronology of the events, already a weak point in Trogus’ account. 

As a result, the vivid description found on Wikipedia and the like is fraud with pitfalls. Here, Zopyrion is said to have assembled an army of 30,000 men. He started his march along the southern banks of the Black Sea and laid siege on Olbia, a colony of Miletus. At that time, Miletus was already incorporated into Alexander’s Empire, but Olbia was not. Left on its own, the city managed to survive the siege by granting freedom to its slave population and citizenship to the foreigners living there. An alliance with the Scythians counteracted Zopyrion’s ambition even further, and he ran out of resources. At this point, he ended his siege of Olbia and started to retreat. At the same time, his navy was apparently hit by a severe storm, devastating his fleet. In Justin’s account, Zopyrion’s campaign was short-lived, and he died with his troops at the end of 331 BC. He also reports that Antipater, as regent of Macedonia, conveyed the news to Alexander in a letter that also informed him that his uncle and brother-in-law, Alexander of Epirus, was killed in Italy. 

While it is correct that Alexander of Epirus was killed in Italy in 331 BC, the ambitious campaign of Zopyrion took place seven years later, in 324 BC. In the end, the details based on Justin’s account may contain some truth, but it is hard to filter them out. 

Another aspect of Alexander’s personality?

Life is full of surprises and Alexander’s life is no exception. Our best sources are extant books by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, Plutarch, and Justin, but contemporary documents are far more difficult to find (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander's life). Alexander’s Royal Journals carefully kept by Callisthenes and Eumenes have not survived, except for some rare fragments whose origins cannot be verified with certainty.

Browsing through Robinson’s book, The History of Alexander the Great and the Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition, I was intrigued by the few lines that survived Ephippus’ writing. 

Ephippus of Olynthus was a historian and contemporary of Alexander. It is unclear whether this man is the same as Ephippus of Chalcis, mentioned by Arrian as one of the superintendents Alexander installed in Egypt. The reason to link both names is that the city of Olynthus is part of Chalcis. Otherwise, our Ephippus may well have lived at the king’s court or shortly after his death. 

He is known as the author of a lost pamphlet “On the death (or funeral) of Alexander and Hephaistion,” as mentioned by Athenaeus of Naucratis, who lived about the end of the 2^nd/beginning of the 3^rd century AD. The document held an account of the burial of Hephaistion and Alexander as well as of the king’s death. 

Robinson is quoting Athenaeus in several separate issues, shedding a different light on Alexander than what other, usually Greek, sources tell us. 

According to Ephippus, Alexander spent one hundred minas on a dinner with his friends, i.e., sixty or seventy of them. It seems the author is reacting to some critics about Alexander’s expenses compared to those of the Persian king, who spent four hundred talents for his 15,000 invites. Converting the currencies, however, both expenditures come to the same amount per capita.

Another observation made by Ephippus is that the Macedonians never understood how to drink in moderation, but drank a lot of wine at the beginning of a feast. The case of Proteas of Macedonia, who was a sturdy guy, is highlighted because he drank a great deal all his life. Alexander, Ephippus said, once ordered a six-quart cup of wine, and after a drink, toasted Proteas, thereby extending a challenge to him. Proteas took the cup, sang praises to his king, and drank the rest of the wine under the wide applause of those present. A little later, Proteas ordered another such cup, toasted the king, and took a drink. Alexander then (accepting the challenge) took it but could not hold it, falling back on his cushion and dropping the cup from his hands. The king fell ill and died. 

This scene inspired Oliver Stone in his Alexander movie during a scene played in India. However, this is not how the king died, and the text puts serious question marks behind the assumption that Ephippus lived at Alexander's court at the time of his death. The truth about Alexander’s death, for me, lies elsewhere as I discussed on previous occasions (see: A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander).

Regarding the luxury of Alexander, Ephippus tells us that the king had a golden throne, and couches with silver feet “on which he used to sit and transact business with his companions”. These couches are known from the Susa wedding party, but the link is not made in this text. 

Ephippus continues by stating that Alexander also wore “sacred vestments”, such as the purple robe, cloven sandals, and horns of Ammon as if he were a god. At times, he would imitate Artemis, wearing her dress while driving his chariot. Alexander also had a Persian robe and displayed the bow and javelin of the goddess above his shoulder. Sometimes, he dressed as Hermes, and sitting with his friends, he wore the god’s sandals and the petasus, holding the caduceus in his hand. In everyday use, he would appear wearing a purple riding cloak and a purple tunic with white stripes, and the Macedonian causia holding the royal diadem. Referring to Heracles, Alexander would wear a lion’s skin and carry the god’s club. 

To my own astonishment, Ephippus also says that Alexander used to have the floor sprinkled with perfumes and fragrant wine, while incense and myrrh were burnt in his presence. If this is true, I presume it would happen only while the king resided in one of the Persian palaces? The bystanders are said to remain silent out of fear of his violence, “with no regard for human life.” 

Athenaeus further quotes Ephippus, saying that Alexander arranged a festival for Dionysus at Ecbatana. He does not tell us when this sacrifice occurred but I would assume it was in 324 BC, maybe around the death of Hephaistion. 

The local satrap Satrabates had invited all the troops (just try to picture the scene!) for his lavish feast, and many speeches of praise and flattery were made to impress Alexander. As in Samarkand, some of these praises turned into insolence. However, with the king’s complicity one of his armorers totally went overboard by having the herald announce that he, Gorgus, would shower the son of Ammon with 3,000 gold coins; and whenever Alexander would besiege Athens, he would add 10,000 full suits of armor and as many catapults and other missiles needed for the war. 

Such words clearly illustrate how preposterous and absurd these flatteries of Alexander were! Freedom of speech? 

Shifting through Ephippus' lines, it is difficult and even impossible to determine what is correct and what is not. As always, opinions are divided. Ephippus’ version of the facts is examined in detail by Antony Spawforth in his article The Pamphleteer Ephippus, King Alexander and the Persian Royal Hunt.

Alexander crosses the Hindu Kush a second time

After two years of intense guerilla fights throughout Sogdiana, Alexander had finally caught Bessus, eliminated Spitamenes and restored a relative peace in Bactria by marrying Roxane. The time had come for him to head for India.

Until now, I was convinced that Alexander returned from Bactria via the Khyber Pass but when I tried to trace where the idea came from, I was in for a surprise. There is no excuse, I should have taken a closer look at the map to realize that the Khyber Pass lies in fact on the way from Kabul to Peshawar and not between Bactria and Afghanistan.

With that question solved, I needed to find out which pass Alexander had used leaving Bactria. The antique authors are disappointingly scant in reporting this part of his campaign. Plutarch, Justin, and Diodorus do not mention the crossing of the Hindu Kush – a formidable barrier under all circumstances - on Alexander’s return and Curtius simply states that Alexander set out for India in order not to foster idleness. Arrian seems to be the only one to be more specific telling us that by the end of spring Alexander began his march for India, that he crossed the Indian Caucasus, and ten days later reached Alexandria(-in-the-Caucasus), the city he had founded during his first expedition into Bactria. Strabo merely tells us that Alexander crossed the Hindu Kush and settled his veterans and mercenaries together with natives at Alexandria-in-the Caucasus.

This meant that I had to rely on modern historians and their research on the matter. Unfortunately, they do not agree among themselves about Alexander’s route and it seems that they all have a theory of their own.

Frank Holt (Into the Land of Bones) has come to the conclusion that Alexander marched his army over the Shibar Pass. With the winter snows gone, the trek went smoothly and without great logistical problems.

Robin Lane Fox (Alexander the Great) says that Alexander used the same pass as earlier, meaning the Khawak Pass (see: From Afghanistan into Bactria across the Hindu Kush). This time in June, the march was at a leisurely pace and took only ten days. The snows had melted and Alexander could rely on food stored in the Sogdian fortresses on the way and on the high grazing grounds for the animals. The army spent a pleasant summer at Alexandria-in-the-Caucasus (Begram) thus avoiding an invasion of India in appalling heat.

A.B. Bosworth (Conquest and Empire) simply mentions that Alexander crossed the passes of the Hindu Kush into the Paropamisadae in ten days and reinforced the city of Alexandria-in-the-Caucasus.

Michael Wood has concluded that Alexander crossed the Hindu Kush via Bamyan, which implies that he took the Shibar Pass.

Donald Engels (Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army) in turn sticks to the Salang Pass since this pass is shorter and has often been used by armies in a hurry. Engels states that the army re-crossed the Hindu Kush in late spring but could not forage for grain along the route because harvest at these high altitudes does not occur until July or August. They had to rely on supplies collected by Hephaistion throughout Bactra before departing.

In a footnote, the author refers to the optional Kushan Pass, just east of the Salang Pass, that has been put forward by other historians, but then this Kushan is seldom used because it is precipitous and treacherous – not exactly recommendable for an army. The Salang Pass, on the other hand, although as fast as the Kushan is much safer. He rules out the Shibar Pass which is longer than the Khawak. Given the ten days it took Alexander to cross the Hindu Kush, Engels’ choice is narrowed down to either the Salang Pass or the Kushan Pass.

All these theories take me back to the map of Afghanistan and of the Hindu Kush in particular. Based on the above, it comes down to choosing between the 3,878 meter-high Salang Pass and the Kushan Pass rising at 4,370 meters located due west of the Salang Pass. Interestingly, this pass is less than one kilometer away from the modern Salang Tunnel built in 1964 with the financial and technological support of the Soviet Union. This meant that traveling time is cut down drastically although repeated avalanches tend to trap the vehicles inside the tunnel, making the voyage still a dangerous one.

Glancing at Google maps provides another quite impressive image of the landscape the Macedonian army crossed. Even with enough food and fodder, we have to admire these sturdy men trudging over narrow paths, through deep ravines, across icy rivers and over rocks of all sizes and shapes. Nobody, not even Hannibal comes close to Alexander’s exploits in the Hindu Kush. In the end, I have to agree with David Engels and agree on the Salang Pass.

We should remember that Alexander’s Asian campaign is much and much more than a series of battles and sieges. Marching often through forbidding landscapes, coping with extreme heat, thunderstorms, crosswinds, dust, rain, sleet and ice, the Macedonians have seen it all but the king set the example by leading his troops over each and every obstacle. The Hindu Kush is just one of these obstacles, although a major one that cannot be stressed enough.

[First picture shows the Shibar Pass by František Řiháček -original prints, CC BY-SA 3.0, - The two other pictures show the Salang Pass by Scott L.Sorensen - My Personal Picture, CC BY 3.0 and by Spc. Michael Vanpool (U.S. Armed Forces) respectively.]

The challenge of crossing the Cilician Gates

The Cilician Gates is the name of a strategic pass in the Taurus Mountains that was used for centuries. Before Alexander, Cyrus the Great, with Xenophon and his Ten Thousand, had marched over this pass, and after him, we know that the Romans, the Mongols, and even the Crusaders were here. As recent as the 20^th century, the railroad engineers working on the train connection between Istanbul and Baghdad had to find their way over the Taurus Mountains at this point.

Xenophon mentions that the pass consisted of a “carriage track,” although the road must have been paved then. The passage through the Cilician Gates was very narrow, saying that it was wide enough for a four-horse chariot, meaning that four horses abreast could move over it at the same time. Yet the road was exceptionally steep and a near-natural barrier for any army to pass unopposed. It was and is frequently crossed by streams trickling from the walls on either side.

As mentioned by Xenophon, the width of a four-horse carriage is hard to match Curtius’ statement that it was wide enough for four armed men to walk abreast. The landscape is very rugged and inhospitable, even today, and in my first passage, I tried in vain to imagine how an army could move over such a terrain. Curtius says that the natural formation resembles fortifications made by human hands – how true that is!

The route Alexander followed out of Cappadocia must have run past modern Kemerhisan, Çiftehan, and Pozantı to arrive at the Gülek Boğaz Pass, as the Cilician Gates is called today.

The Romans, great road builders as they were, have left records of their improvements together with a series of milestones all along the road, like the lonely one standing in front of the local roadside restaurant. The stone carries an inscription stating that Caracalla repaired and improved the Via Tauri, as this road was called around 217 AD. Another milestone in this same area was erected by Severus Alexander, giving the distance to the Gates, the confines of the Cilicians, which matches the figure mentioned in the inscription at the Cilician Gates further down the road.

It is fascinating to find that wall inscription off the main highway down on the adjacent valley floor, knowing that it was initially engraved high above the ancient Via Tauri that led down to the coastal city of Tarsus. It is hard to imagine that W.M. Ramsay, who visited this area in 1882, had to use a telescope to read this inscription on the cliff above the stream (now tunneled underneath the modern road). The text can be translated as “Caracalla (with the addition of his real full name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) made the road wider by cutting through the mountains.” It is a miracle that this inscription has survived modern construction works as it now seems to stand on the valley floor, squeezed between the supportive wall of the highway, the narrow stream, and the mountain slopes on the other side.

When Alexander arrived at the spot known as Xenophon’s encampment near the Gates (probably less than three kilometers away), he investigated the situation. The narrow pass was pretty easy to defend from the high overhang above the road, where a small force could destroy the approaching enemy. It is clear, once again, that Alexander was not taking any chances. He ordered his light-armed Thracians ahead to occupy the different access paths and check them for enemy forces. At the same time, a band of bowmen was posted on the ridges above the access road, ready to attack if needed. It is so easy to see them mentally while moving over this road! Alexander left Parmenion with the heavy infantry near Cyrus’ encampment while he himself marched towards the Gates under cover of darkness to take the enemy by surprise. That surprise did not work out as his approach was noticed, and the small force supposed to defend the Gates fled at first sight of Alexander and his men. This was much easier than Thermopylae!

The following day at the crack of dawn, Alexander marched his men through the narrows. The operation lasted a full day, but the road to Tarsus lay open to him. Justin is so optimistic as to write that Alexander reached the city in one full day, but this is a distance of some 75 kilometers which Xenophon covered in a four-day march instead.

Before reaching Tarsus, walking over a reasonable stretch of said Via Tauri for about five or six kilometers through an unforgiving landscape of rough rocks and spiny bushes is still possible. A delicate arch is still spanning the road at the horizon, but this is a mere reconstruction since the original collapsed after repeated explosions at the mining site in the valley below. The mining company was ordered to rebuild it - thank Zeus for that.

It takes the modern traveler a lot of imagination since today’s highway across the Taurus Mountains has been widened and leveled compared to the narrow ancient passage. However, it still follows the same course. Then as now, the road runs downhill from here onwards into the coastal plain, and gradually the landscape becomes much friendlier with cultivated fields and blossoming orchards along wide rivers. Xenophon had also noticed the difference, saying that once across the pass, Cyrus entered a beautiful, well-watered plain that produced sesame, millet, wheat, and barley – easy to picture!

Still marching on the Via Tauri, Alexander received notice that the governor of Tarsus no longer wished to hold the city for Persia and was ready to give up the town. The townspeople clearly got scared, not of Alexander, but of their governor, who might be plundering Tarsus on his way out. Alexander clearly understood this, and he immediately rode up at full speed to the people’s rescue, just in time before the man could take any booty with him as he hurried for the Persian court.

Another ancient road was discovered near the village of Anavarza (Roman Caesarea). During the first and second centuries, it was the most important city of Cilicia and larger than Ephesos. The town has suffered severely from repeated earthquakes over the centuries, the last one as recent as 1945. The most striking element, however, is a double-columned highway, approximately 35 meters wide and 2.7 kilometers long. It has been established that the columns were of the Corinthian order and were erected at 2.15 meters intervals. So far, 1,360 columns have been unearthed, and plans are to restore them and the entrance gate. I wonder how much and in what shape this portion of the road existed in Alexander’s days.

Alexander the Great in India. A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus by A. Chugg

In the tradition of his previous book in the series of Cleitarchus’ Reconstruction (see: The Death of Alexander the Great: a Reconstruction of Cleitarchus), Andrew Chugg wrote Alexander the Great in India. A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus (ISBN 978-0-9556790-1-8).

Once again, the author has been comparing the surviving texts from Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch and Justin to filter out the original work these authors have used themselves based on Cleitarchus of Alexandria. To a lesser extent Chugg also includes the Metz Epitome, many of Jacoby’s precious observations, as well as comments formulated by modern writers.

In spite of all this, the book makes an exceptional pleasant reading. Since Chugg is combining the texts from ancient authors there is no need to go through each of them individually to get the whole picture. Centrally in Alexander’s conquest of India is the Battle of the Hydaspes against Porus and this part of his conscientious gathering of information is by itself worth the reading! He ends his book with a concise description of Alexander’s Route Through India – very handy if you want the history in a nutshell but with yet enough pertaining details.

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, although not a single copy has come to us since they all were destroyed or discarded at some time or another.

Chugg has reconstructed Cleitarchus’ Book 10 (June 327 BC – June 326 BC that includes the Battle at the Hydaspes), Book 11 (July 326 BC – May 325 BC where we find the mutiny on the Hyphasis), and Book 12 (June 325 BC – June 324 BC including Alexander’s march through the Gedrosian Desert).

The author includes a Table listing all the Books and Fragments of Cleitarchus, from Book 1 to Book13, followed by a Table listing the Sources of Cleitarchus in chronological order. Next is a short Table giving the matches between Curtius and Diodorus. He also adds a very handy sketch showing the links used by each and every author in antiquity around the central figure of Cleitarchus.

The book ends with a Table giving for each episode in Cleitarchus' terms the corresponding sources and references with additional comments in the last column.

For those who want to read more of such reconstructions covering other periods of Alexander’s eventful life, there is good news since Andrew Chugg has recently published such a book: Concerning Alexander the Great: A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus (ISBN 978-0955679087).

If after all that you still have questions, please do get in touch with Andrew Chugg in person.

Debates about the Tomb of Kasta Hill near Amphipolis still ongoing …

Poor Alexander! It seems that 2,500 years after his death, we are still fighting over his body. He certainly does not deserve this!

It took me a while to sift through the different theories exposed by the author of the Empedotimos blog, which are evidently not entirely absurd but cannot be taken at face value either. History can be explained in many different ways, and the author picked his own choice, making his viewpoint quite clear, but that does not mean we have to agree with him. Comments left on both his posts in August and September clearly prove that I am not the only skeptic here, and I thank "Redumbrella" for bringing this to my attention.

So I started digging again into those dark and complex days that followed Alexander's death in Babylon in 323 BC, a quarrel that went on for forty years. There are far more sources than Pausanias or Diodorus to be used like Empedotimos did, and I thought I might as well explain my point of view here.

To begin with, Curtius Rufus and Justin state that Alexander's last wish was that his body would be taken to Ammon. Also, Diodorus and possibly Trogus (Justin) wrote this, as well as the Alexander Romance. Whatever the "Macedonian" twist today's Greeks want to give to the story, Alexander's request is entirely consistent with what we know of his personality and beliefs at the time of his death. As the "son of Ammon," he definitely accepted Ammon's authority, which is sustained by his request for Hephaistion's worship. It is, therefore, absolutely possible that Alexander did ask to be buried in Egypt and that the Macedonians at his deathbed accepted his request while under the emotions of the moment.

Meanwhile, Alexander's half-witted half-brother Arrhidaeus had been proclaimed king together with the newly born Alexander IV by Roxane. Upon Alexander's death, Perdiccas was underway to Macedonia to relieve Antipater from his function and replace him as Regent.

Diodorus indeed states that Arrhidaeus spent two years preparing the catafalque for Alexander (as referred to by Empedotimos). Still, since the funeral procession reached Syria in the winter of 322/321 BC after moving literally at a crawling pace, it must have left Babylon in the summer of 322 BC at the latest. That substantially reduces the time to build a tomb for Alexander in Amphipolis.

It is clear that the entire trip from Babylon to Egypt is wrapped in contradictions. Perdiccas may have changed his mind and refrained from the initial acceptance of Alexander's orders to bring his body to Egypt, and wanted it to come to Macedonia. It was the new king Philip-Arrhidaeus who accompanied the body of Alexander. There are indications that he agreed with Ptolemy to bring the carriage to Egypt (confirmed by Arrian). We should remember that at this point, Perdiccas was officially Regent, meaning that under the Macedonian constitution, it was his prerogative to bury his king. This implies that he was also reluctant to cede this honor to Ptolemy. Besides, he must have considered Olympias' wrath had he returned to Macedonia without her son's remains!

And then there is the legend or prophecy that the Macedonian kingship would end when the king was not buried at Aegae. Aelian, in his Varia Historia, tells us about Aristander of Termissus, who had been Alexander's faithful soothsayer. Aristander, after seeing the king's body unburied for thirty days, addressed the Assembly of Macedonians, stating that both in life and in death, Alexander had been most fortunate and that the gods told him that the land that would receive his body, "the former habitation of his soul," would be blessed with the greatest good fortune. Aelian continues to tell us how Ptolemy "stole" the body and how Perdiccas chased him to recover it.

We must be aware that in the winter of 322-321 BC, Perdiccas and a major force of veterans were in Pisidia, about 1,100 km away. This meant the news that the funeral cortege bifurcated to Egypt took at least one week, if not two, to reach him. The bulky carriage with Alexander's remains made only slow progress, and Perdiccas must have figured out that he could catch up before it reached Egypt.

Aelian's account makes sense as Ptolemy had enough time to make a likeness of Alexander, clad in royal robes, to be laid in one of the Persian carriages, arranging the bier with sumptuous gold, silver, and ivory. Alexander's real body was then sent ahead in secret. When Perdiccas arrived, he obviously thought he had found the real prize and stopped his march. It was too late to go in pursuit when he realized the trick. How much this story is true remains debatable, but I find it strange that the author of Empedotimos did not mention it – unless I missed it (my Greek is only basic, and the provided English translation is not the best …). At least we know that a 'fake' Alexander was made, but we can only speculate what happened afterward. Probably Perdiccas got so mad that he destroyed it after recovering the precious gold and silver, of course.

Pausanias' version is entirely coherent with the overall situation where Ptolemy demanded the catafalque to be handed over to him. Ptolemy then went to bury Alexander's mummified body according to Macedonian rites in Memphis. What these "Macedonian rites" mean is not clear.

Please note that Plutarch mentions the arrival of embalmers about one week after Alexander was declared dead and that the body lay uncorrupted for days; Curtius says that the body had a lifelike appearance. This clearly confirms that Alexander was not cremated but embalmed.

Perdiccas did not accept Ptolemy's attitude and went to war against him, taking Philip-Arrhidaeus and the young infant Alexander IV with him to add more weight to his campaign. As we know, Perdiccas' attack ended in failure; his officers mutinied and stabbed him to death. The men then asked Ptolemy to take over the Regency of Macedonia, but for unspecified reasons, Ptolemy declined. However, he appointed Peithon, one of the bodyguards of Alexander the Great and later satrap of Media, to be co-regent with Arrhidaeus and sent the party back north.

In turn, Strabo, the geographer who lived in Alexandria for several years, asserts that the body of Alexander was entombed in Alexandria, "where it still now lies." Strabo lived in the first century BC/first century AD, a good two hundred years after Alexander's death, and by this time, Macedonia was a Roman territory. Nobody then had any interest in bringing Alexander back to Amphipolis. This also means that the corpse of Alexander was definitely not cremated.

My way of thinking may not be convincing, but neither are any previous theories I came across, even though they were expressed by academics…

The Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition by C.A. Robinson

The History of Alexander the Great and the Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition by C.A. Robinson (ISBN 0-89005-555-6) is a most precious source of information for whoever wants to dig further into the literature related to Alexander that has come to us through authors from antiquity.

This is by no means an easy, coherent reading, for it has taken me some adjustments to get a hold of the pattern that F. Jacoby established in his Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, edited in 1929, which Robinson translated into English.

Robinson starts by explaining that all we have about Alexander the Great are the stories told by “Extant Historians” like Arrian, Diodorus, Justin, Curtius, and Plutarch, followed by a great many “Fragments” from the Royal Journal kept by his court historian Callisthenes of Olynthus and later by his secretary Eumenes of Cardia. Also included are surviving parts from the books written by Alexander’s contemporaries like Ptolemy, Nearchus of Crete, Onesicritus of Astypalacea, and Archias of Pella, as well as from many later Greek and Roman historians.

This book respects Jacoby’s scheme, including the numbering of the authors (which does not really make sense in Robinson’s book but probably does in Jacoby’s), the references to them, and how he splits the texts in “Testimonies” and “Fragments.” Once I got used to juggling around in this wealth of information, I found it terribly exciting to discover all those bits and pieces of history that I came across occasionally, not knowing if they were based on actual existing sources or were the simple imagination of some modern writer. Afterward, it is entirely understandable that these bits and pieces are not mentioned in the average book about Alexander simply because they don’t add much, if anything, to the story or would not fit in Alexander’s conquests proper.

Personally, I found Nearchus’ naval expedition along the coast of the Indian Ocean highly interesting, and also the wide-ranging reports about Alexander’s death in Babylon, including the last days leading up to his untimely death.

A handy Itinerary of Alexander is attached, showing names and places in a comparative table aiming to match many of the events and locations mentioned by Arrian, Diodorus, Justin, Curtius, and Plutarch, placing them in the same time frame. The names are not arranged alphabetically as one would expect, but chronologically, meaning that you need to know enough about Alexander’s campaign to start your search. 

And finally, there is an Appendix in which Robinson tries to make sense of the confusion about Alexander’s whereabouts in the winters of 330-329 and 329-328 BC and his crossing of the Hindu-Kush. I remember how difficult it was to match the accounts of Arrian and Plutarch during my trip through Central Asia, where, in the end, I was not able to sort out these dates. It looks like Robinson made an instrumental analysis that is absolutely worthwhile reading.

Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by Justin

The full title of this book is: Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeus Trogus, Volume I, Books 11-12, Alexander the Great. Translated and appendices by J.C. Yardley. Commentary by Waldemar Heckel (ISBN 0-19-814908-5).

The content of this book is far from straightforward, although, in the end, one could simply say this is a history of Alexander the Great. But …

The complexity starts with the authors. Marcus Junianus Justinus, Justin in short, probably lived in the 2^nd/3^rd century AD. He is said to have arrived in Rome around 200 AD, where he came to know the 44 books called the Philippic Histories written by a certain Trogus. Pompeius Trogus was a prominent historian from Gallia Narbonesis, probably from Vaison-la-Romaine. Justin decided that Trogus’ history was far too voluminous and wrote his own abridged version. As a consequence, the precious original History of Trogus slowly but surely vanished.

Trogus’ name, however, survives among the great Latin historians and is mentioned together with Livy, Sallust, and Tacitus. It has been established that he was influenced by Livy and that Curtius Rufus, in turn, was influenced by Trogus. A small world, it seems.

Unfortunately, accuracy was not one of Justin’s strong points and he was not very concerned about his sources or the chronology of the events, this last point being also a weak point in Trogus’ account.

Justin’s Books 11 and 12 deal with Alexander the Great and as announced in the present title, it is this section that has been translated by J.C. Yardley – in a mere 27 pages. The great question remains: which elements come from Trogus and which were added or interpreted later on by Justin? This is more often than not an impossible task, but Heckel’s commentary tries to sort this out. He analyses every sentence and every word in a very meticulous and precise way using all possible ancient sources and consulting an enormous bibliography of later authors which are all referenced. This commentary is in fact so extensive and detailed that one could easily find all the available books ever written about Alexander the Great. By reading only the commentary, one acquires an excellent account of Alexander’s campaigns as seen by so many different scholars over the centuries.

The Introduction to this Epitome gives useful background information about Trogus and Justin, set in their own time-frame and the book concludes with a couple of very useful Appendices.

This is not exactly bedtime reading but a very thorough analysis of the massive literature ever written about Alexander the Great.

Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great by Elizabeth Carney

Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great (ISBN 0-415—33317-2), is an excellent book about an equally exceptional woman – an absolute must for every admirer of Alexander the Great!

It is amazing what information Elizabeth Carney has been able to produce, primarily since so very little has been written about Olympias, even in antiquity. E. Carney knows the mother of Alexander the Great very intimately, and as she states herself, she has been living with her longer than with her own husband. That tells a great deal. 

At first glance, the book looks deceptively small, but the amount of information and the conclusions she manages to present is enormous.

The chapter division has been kept relatively simple:

1. Olympias the Molossian tells us about Olympias' youth; the kingdom of Molossia; the social place of married women in Greece and Macedonia; and the preparations for her wedding with Philip II of Macedonia in Samothrace.
2. Olympias, the wife of Philip II, discusses the problems of a polygamous marriage; her place at Philip's court; her role as the mother of a possible heir; her involvement in the Pixodarus affair, and the consequences of Attalus' accusation about the legality of Alexander as Macedonian king; Philip conceiving the construction of the Philippeon in Olympia after his victory at Chaeronea.
3. Olympias, the mother of the king, Alexander the Great, obviously starts in 336 BC with her possible implication in the murder of her husband and her son's ascension to the throne. Discussed are the murder of Cleopatra (Philip's last wife) and her child(ren); her disagreements with Antipater since Alexander had not clearly defined the role of each; Olympias' own political power through customary female religious activities (together with that of her daughter Cleopatra  queen of Molossia, by now widowed from marrying her uncle, Olympias' brother).
4. Olympias on her own, leaves her in a world of total chaos with no time or opportunity to grieve over her son's death (his body never returned home). The bickering of Alexander's generals is examined, and the generally accepted idea that Alexander was poisoned at Antipater's instigation, with the complicity of his sons. Olympias measures her strength against that of Adea Eurydike, the wife of Philip Arrhidaeus, and then liquidates both of them. Cassander rules over Macedonia. Cleopatra, Alexander's sister, tries to save Macedonia by putting herself on the marriage market without success and is eventually killed. Finally, the murder of Olympias and its circumstances are scrutinized. This is by far the period when most of what we know about Olympias has been recorded, although the chronology is often lost in the complexity of the events.
5. Olympias and religion are less about Olympias' religious practice than the general involvement of women in religion, both in Macedonia and Greece proper.
6. Olympias' afterlife examines her burial and how she has been remembered throughout Roman times, generally together with her famous son.
7. Appendix. Olympias and the sources. In this extra chapter E. Carney clearly explains the pros and cons related to sources like Diodorus, Justin, Curtius, Arrian, Plutarch, and Pausanias.

Throughout her book, E. Carney painstakingly examines what has been written by the abovementioned authors and what has been mentioned in the Alexander Romance to put together an image of Olympias and the time she lived in. She does this most pleasantly, with an open mind, scrutinizing and analyzing every nuance in the sentences of the extensive bibliography she is using. She is cautious in drawing her conclusions, and rightfully so. Unlike many other authors, she is not ramming her views and ideas down my throat.

In my opinion, it takes a woman to write about Olympias. No one could have done a better job than Elizabeth Carney.