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. 

Alexander moved to Abu Dhabi

The recent opening of the Louvre Abu Dhabi has been widely advertised in the media and although this is far from the usual tourist destination it certainly seems to be worth the visit.

It is clear that the name “Louvre” is a temporary publicity for which Abu Dhabi paid $1.15 billion and their agreement will run for the next thirty years. During the first ten years of its life, the Louvre Abu Dhabi will receive artwork on loan from four Parisian museums, the Louvre, the Musée Quai d’Orsay, the Bibliothèque Nationale and the Centre Pompidou. This should allow them to constitute their own collection in the meantime.

Among the six hundred or so artifacts on display (half of them coming from France), I was pleasantly surprised to find a statue of Alexander the Great. It is the bust of Alexander Inopos from around 100 BC recovered from Delos. However, some scholars disagree and believe it to represent Mithradates VI who was a great admirer of Alexander and tried to emulate him.

I like to see this statue as a homecoming of Alexander in the Persian Gulf. So far, there is no knowledge that he himself ever went as far as the Strait of Hormuz near today’s Abu Dhabi, but his admiral Nearchus certainly passed that narrow when he brought his fleet from the Indus River to Babylon. As far as we know, Alexander himself sailed from the gulf up the Tigris River all the way to Opis (read: The Conquests of Alexander the Great by Waldemar Heckel).

Alexander’s presence in the Gulf area is generally overlooked. We know, for instance that he founded the city of Alexandria-on-the-Tigris, also called Antiochia-in-Susiana or Charax Spasinou-on-the-Tigris at the spot where the river emptied in the Persian Gulf some 2,500 years ago (see: Excavations at Alexandria-on-the-Tigris). There are traces of Alexander’s presence at Failaka, an island off the coast of modern Kuwait (see: Alexander’s Outpost in the Gulf).

Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox

For several years, I used Robin Lane Fox’s Alexander the Great (ISBN 0-141-02076-8) as a reference book but it is not until now that I really read it cover to cover. It turned out to be a most captivating experience.

Before writing down my own impressions on this book, I looked at previous comments made by other purchasers on Amazon and I am truly appalled to see it qualified as “very badly written” and “hard to understand”. This is not a novel and cannot be compared to Manfredi’s tales. On the contrary, this is a serious work in which Robin Lane Fox put his entire heart and soul, together with his thorough knowledge of one of the most enigmatic persons who ever lived.

The book is not a quick history of Alexander’s life and conquests but an in-depth study of his actions set against the background of the world he lived in and to which he had to adapt time and again as he met other civilizations and foreign tribes during his march east.

While the author follows Alexander’s steps, he often stops to analyze the whole context and to place the story against the background which the king encountered. It is so easy to judge Alexander based on our own experiences but to judge him in the frame of so many new elements and circumstances is a totally different matter.

For instance, Robin Lane Fox takes the time to explain the Macedonian military machine and armory as put into place by Philip, Alexander’s father. He does the same for Persia where he highlights the court system and the complexity of its government – most of it not unknown to Alexander but an aspect that is more often than not skipped in our western literature. He explains Persian customs and court protocol, including the meaning of being the “King of kings”. He also reminds us of the fact that Alexander had no maps and no more directions to guide him than what Herodotus had written in his Histories (something like the maps of the stars used by the first astronauts flying to the moon in the 1960s).

Although some parts of Alexander’s march east are passed by quickly, the author certainly takes the time to discuss the main events. There is, for instance, Siwah, where he not only describes the voyage and Alexander’s reception by the priests but also the significance of the god Amon and the idea behind the title “son of Amon”. Lane Fox also analyses the battles of Issus and Gaugamela including Alexander’s preparations but also looks at the tactics from Darius’ point of view. The Philotas’ Affair implicating his father, Parmenion, as well as the conspiracy of the Pages and the murder of Cleitus are discussed extensively and weighed up against the circumstances and the irrefutable evidence with which Alexander was confronted. Other battles and sieges, especially the attack of the Aornos Rock, the decisive Battle on the Hydaspes and the Mallian fight in which Alexander is deadly wounded are clearly explained with all pros and cons. And let us not forget the mutiny of Alexander’s Macedonians at the Hyphasis and at Opis – how masterly the king addressed his men in both cases.

It is clear that Robin Lane Fox has a great admiration for Alexander and it shows but he also approaches this great king without prejudice and with a great effort to merely analyzing the facts. Considering that Alexander covered almost 20,000 kilometers in eight years coping with battles and sieges, crossing the widest rivers and the highest mountains, taking the responsibility to feed and care for one hundred thousand of people if we include the baggage train, Robin Lane Fox did an extremely good job to present Alexander as a human being, king, general and faithful friend.

Alexander’s eloquence

Eloquence is a fascinating aspect of Alexander's personality that only transpires on certain occasions and is hard to figure out as it automatically raises other questions. Was Alexander a born orator? He may well have been. Was Alexander inspired by his father's eloquence? Not unlikely since Philip was a shrewd manipulator in words and deeds, and this ability cannot have been lost on his son. Was Alexander a good pupil of Aristotle? No doubt, and certainly when it came to learning those skills which truly mattered to him.

The art of rhetoric is lost in our 21^st century of mass communication, where fast, phonetic language is the rule, but there were times when people would meet to talk for the sake of argumentation. Using our language effectively to convince and impress our interlocutor with the tiniest of nuances was an art. The fashion was popular with ancient Greeks, who liked to elaborate on their topics during their Symposia.

Historians like Arrian and Curtius often quote Alexander verbatim when he addresses his troops or responds to certain situations. Generally, these words are considered created by the authors rather than actually pronounced by the king. Maybe so, maybe not. Unfortunately, we have no original texts from Alexander's journals or memoirs written by his contemporaries like Onesicritus, Callisthenes, Ptolemy, or Aristobulus. Therefore, it seems too easy and even unfair to dismiss the idea that their accounts could have contained accurate original quotes and even speeches made by Alexander.

There are many examples of Alexander addressing his troops to motivate and encourage them at the onset of a battle. Still, he probably spoke to his audiences on many more occasions. It is said that he knew more than one thousand of his men by name, and I am confident that he used every opportunity to talk to them in person. In modern vocabulary, he is a good communicator.

We generally tend to accept the one-sentence quotes that are reported in history, like:

-    when young Alexander sees that Bucephalus is being led away because the horse is judged to be beyond training, and exclaims: "What an excellent horse do they lose, for want of address and boldness to manage him!"

-   when Alexander visits Diogenes in Corinth (that is, IF that meeting did indeed take place), he would have said, "If I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes."

-    when, after the Battle of Issus, Darius offers Alexander all of Asia to the Euphrates and the hand of his daughter in marriage, Parmenion encourages his king to accept this offer. Alexander drily responds, "So would I, if I were Parmenion."

-    or the plausible remark making Alexander say, "sex and sleep alone make me conscious that I am mortal," or the one showing his bleeding wounds stating that this is not "ichor" flowing through his veins (golden blood of the gods).

It is beyond doubt that Alexander addressed his troops just before the battle, for he had an excellent personal antenna to judge the morale of his men, and he knew exactly how to motivate them. Very modern is the openness with which Alexander tells his army what they are to expect, embellishing the truth in his favor whenever opportune. But we cannot blame him for that as, after all, the trick is used by every politician - then as now. The art consists in making the message clear and credible. "We are free men, and they are slaves" is one such quote.

The encouraging words he spoke just before crossing the Pillars of Jonah, over which Alexander would have to retrace his steps to the Pinarus River, where the Battle of Issus was to take place, are very telling. Both Arrian and Curtius spend many lines describing Alexander's speeches and personal addresses to his commanders and even to individuals of lower ranks, making sure to touch every man's pride and get their minds ready for the battle to come.

Like a fine psychologist, he plays the cord that touches the soul of every man. He reminds his Macedonians of their victories in Europe, including that at Chaeronea, rekindling their old-time valor; he reminds them of the Granicus and the many cities of Asia Minor they have already taken. When he faced the Greek allied forces, he brought up the brutal invasions of the Persians who burned their temples and homes, adding that now was the time for revenge. To the Thracians and Illyrians accustomed to a life of plunder, he tells them to focus on the gleaming gold and purple of the enemies and the booty they would yield. Of course, he needs all these soldiers since, according to the League of Corinth, they joined forces to fight against Persia; they need to be motivated as well. When he tackles the subject of the Greek mercenaries fighting in Persian service, he points out that they fight for pay. Alexander's foreign troops – Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes – were Europe's best and stoutest soldiers. Enough to kindle every man's pride!

Arrian concludes by putting these words in Alexander's mouth: "The enemy of Persians and Medes have lived soft and luxurious, while we Macedonians went to the hard school of danger and war. You have Alexander – they Darius!". We know the outcome of that battle!

At Gaugamela, Alexander addressed his soldiers in quite a different way since each and every one of them knew how important this victory over the King of Persia would be. Nevertheless, he stresses that every soldier should preserve his discipline in the hour of danger, that all orders must be obeyed promptly, and that all officers, regardless of their rank, must pass their commands to their subordinates without hesitation or delay. Most importantly, Alexander emphasizes that the conduct of each of his men is crucial to the fate of all. In other words, if everyone does their duty as expected, their success is assured, but if only one man neglects it, the entire army will be in peril. Strong talk.

Once his forces are arranged according to his plan, Alexander once again rides up and down the lines to lift the spirits of every man and every squadron with a last word of encouragement. Everything depended on the commitment of each and every one of Alexander's troops to maintain the frontline and avoid any gap in the formation that could be exploited by the Persians. Amazingly and against all odds, Alexander has indeed been able to maintain his line of defense. His men did not let him down!

Of an entirely different caliber is Alexander's earnest appeal to his Macedonians in the case of the Philotas Affair, in which his trusted general and boyhood friend is suspected of treason in an attempt to take the life of his king. This is a most threatening and highly alarming situation that can be compared to attacks on the lives of modern leaders like JF Kennedy or King Hassan II of Morocco. Thorough investigations followed these attacks with more or less success.

In Alexander's case, he had to lead the investigation himself and present it before his Macedonians under the prevailing laws. Alexander's exposé is worthy of the plea held by the most accomplished lawyer. He starts by telling his men how close he escaped death. He then shares his deep sorrow when learning that his longtime friends Philotas and Parmenion, his father's most trusted generals, had conceived a plot to take his life. The informants are then praised for their courage in bringing Alexander the bad news while bathing. Philotas, in his efforts to keep the matter quiet, must have had good reasons to do so, he says. He even reads aloud a letter Parmenion sent to his sons, Nicanor and Philotas, which he had intercepted, and in which Parmenion advised them to look out for themselves "for thus we shall accomplish what we have planned." A sentence that would have had no meaning had the conspiracy not been disclosed. Alexander takes his plea a step further by confiding his hitherto personal skepticism about Philotas, who had joined Amyntas (Alexander's uncle who was underage when his father was killed on the battlefield, upon which Philip was chosen as Macedonia's new king, with Philip's death he could claim the throne) to make an impious plot against his life. He tells his soldiers how these acts have torn him apart – working on their sentiments.

Alexander continues by reminding his soldiers that he had put Philotas in command of his elite cavalry, entrusting his life, hopes, and victories to him. He had elected his father, Parmenion, to rule over Media with all its richness, which required integrity and respect for his king. Now his trust has been broken, and he has fallen victim to such a shameful scheme! Alexander, in his speech, seeks refuge with his troops, going as far as to state that his own safety lies in their avenge.

Philotas' defense, which I will not detail here, is no less flamboyant and another example of good rhetoric that can only be traced back to Aristotle's teaching.

Alexander's plea in India was more significant and complicated when his Macedonians refused to march beyond the Hyphasis River. He called a meeting with his officers, hoping they would agree on going forward; however, without success. He then gathers his troops and reminds them of what they have accomplished so far. Working on their sentiments, he asks them if they are afraid (a sensitive note, no doubt) and then exposes the great prospects that lay ahead. Alexander has shared all his men's hardships and suffered the same wounds, the cold, heat, thirst, and famine. After these words, his men stood there in utter silence as nobody dared to respond or contradict any of the king's arguments till Coenus courageously stepped forward to verbalize the thoughts of the Macedonians present. They were determined not to go any further – they only wanted to go home after too many years away from their loved ones. We know that Alexander sulked in his tent for several days after that, but even he could not accomplish a miracle and had to give in and lead the army back west.

Alexander's discourse at Opis in 324 BC is the most famous and best documented. Here, Alexander called his Macedonians together and announced that he was discharging the veterans among them, the wounded, and those unfit for further service, so they could return to their homes. They would collect their pay, and their bonus would make them the envy of their family and friends at home. The king expected his decision would please his Macedonians (who wanted so badly to go home when they were in India!), but instead, they resented his words and told him so with loud shouting. They felt pushed aside in favor of the Persians and other foreign troops and cavalry. It hurt them deeply that the very people they conquered were to take their place.

Although Alexander was taken off guard, he immediately rushed into the rebellious mob to arrest the ringleaders of this mutiny. Then he made a fiery speech addressing his troops, who had contributed to his success over the years. He started by referring to his father, who brought the mountain people and goat herders to the rich plains of Macedonia and told them how to be victorious in battle. He, Alexander, had led them from victory to victory, adding all of Asia Minor to Macedonia, reaping the riches of Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia. They conquered the cities of Halicarnassus, Babylon, Persepolis, and Bactra. He took nothing for himself while they all lived in luxury. He shared his soldiers' toil and fatigue, hunger and thirst, freezing cold and scorching heat, and even their wounds. None of them was killed in flight, and those who fell in a glorious death were honored with a splendid burial, and their parents were released from taxation.

Finally, Alexander makes a defiant statement: "if you wish to depart, depart all of you!" He tells his Macedonians to go back home to report that when they returned to Susa after all those years of conquests – and he names the peoples, lands, rivers, and mountains they conquered – they deserted their king, leaving him under the protection of conquered foreigners. Do they expect their homecoming to be glorious in the eyes of their kin when they hear that they left their king behind? Powerful words which were much fiercer than those used in India.

Alexander retires to his quarters for three days. By the third day, he had drawn new plans appointing Persians to occupy the hitherto Macedonian commanding posts, which include his Companions and even his Silver Shields! That was just too much for the Macedonians to bear! The very thought of having those Persian Barbarians commanding them was inconceivable. They thronged around the entrance of Alexander's quarters, begging for admission and offering to give up the ringleaders of the mutiny. Once again, the army conquered their beloved king's heart, but Alexander's eloquence brought them back to reason.

"Every man of you, I regard as my kinsman, and from now on that is what I shall call you" are the words Alexander used to close the matter. I think this says a lot about the magnanimity of Alexander, but we should not forget that his eloquence widely contributed to his success.

[The picture of Alexander at Gaugamela is from Oliver Stone's movie Alexander]

Alexander de Grote. De strijd van een jonge man om de wereld te veroveren

The author of this book published in Dutch under the title “Alexander de Grote. De strijd van een jonge man om de wereld te veroveren” (ISBN 9789055139859) is not known or at least not mentioned although it somewhere says that the text is by Merit Roodbeen – why this mystery? In any case, this was reason enough for me not to buy it, but then I received it as a gift. I read it, of course, for after all this is about Alexander the Great and one never knows what treasure might still be hidden somewhere. Well, not here that is certain.

All in all, a decent effort is made to cover Alexander’s entire life, from his youth in Macedonia and his early years of kingship to his untimely death shortly after having lost his dearest friend Hephaistion. The key battles at Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela are treated, followed by Darius’ death, the capture of Bessus, the conquest of Bactria and Sogdiana till the King reaches India where his army doesn’t want to go any further. After crossing the Makran desert he arrives back in Babylon and deals with the Opis revolt. This is nothing new, simply the classical story of Alexander’s life.

As I expected, the book entirely lacks incentive, passion or personal approach. This is very sad for the person of Alexander the Great is terribly exciting, fascinating and mysterious at the same time, yet none of this transpires in this book.

Alexander the Great and his Empire by Pierre Briant

Alexander the Great and his Empire (ISBN 9780691141947) certainly is an all-encompassing title covering every aspect of the person of Alexander and of the Empire he created. However, to make the reading easier, Pierre Briant has divided his book into a handful of chapters:

• A brief overview of Alexander's major conquests;
• Alexander's objectives (not only his pothos as reported by Arrian);
• The resistance Alexander met during his different conquests;
• How Alexander administered and exploited his new conquests;
• Alexander's changing relations with the Macedonians, the Greeks, and the Persians;
• A few words about Alexander's succession.

At the end of this fascinating book, he inserted an Appendix summarizing the current state of scholarship and several hints for future research on this vast subject.

In short, Pierre Briant gives the reader a fully up-to-date account of what has been written and excavated about Alexander the Great. His book dates from 2005 (in French) and was translated and updated again in 2010 by nobody less than Amélie Kuhrt.

Up to now, I was familiar with Pierre Briant's "Alexander the Great, Man of Action/Man of Spirit," where he skillfully manages to give a complete insight into the life of this Macedonian King with endless details, although here the history is being summarized. He has done the same in his present book, depicting Alexander against the Achaemenid Persians on one side and against the Macedonians on the other, both within his army and on the home front.

For instance, he underlines the threat of a revolt in Greece led by Sparta, a realistic fear for Alexander as it might coincide with a major Persian attack during the years 333-331 BC, where he would be caught in the middle. He puts history back in its own context, including the position of King Darius, who was a worthy opponent rather than a coward, as so often related in other tales.

Or the fact that Alexander always tried to gain the support of the elite of the lands he conquered – a crucial aspect of his strategy where he gladly copied Cyrus the Great. He aimed at full cooperation between the conquerors and the conquered, as proven by an astronomical clay tablet found in Babylon – something his contemporaries didn't understand, and neither do our modern authors.

Pierre Briant also sheds new light on the Philotas Affair, which may simply have originated in his Companion's opposition to Persian customs rather than from a conspiracy, adding that by 330 BC, even Parmenion no longer served Alexander's needs. Another eye-opener I found was about the Opis Mutiny when Alexander sent the veterans home, while the real grudge may well have been the fact that the army wanted to go home altogether and with their King.

Even about Alexander's succession Pierre Briant has an interesting remark: If Alexander had produced an heir before leaving for Asia, the boy (assuming it would have been a boy) would have been ten years old by the time of his death in Babylon in 323 BC. The problem of appointing a successor would have been the same, meaning that a joint kingship of his half-brother Arrhidaeus and the boy (like now with his son by Roxane) would have been inevitable.

He also stops at the idea that is generally developed that Alexander aimed to create a universal brotherhood. Although he evened the gap between Greeks (read "civilized") and Barbarians, Pierre Briant stresses Alexander's remarkable political intelligence and wish to make lasting long-term decisions. Another astonishing fact is that Alexander managed to reorganize his army in two years (324-323 BC), creating an entirely new joint Macedonian and Persian forces. 

A treasure of information and a most pleasant reading, as can be expected from this author. Personally, I found his updated map of Alexander's conquest highly interesting, especially the enlargement of his march through Bactria and Sogdiana (at last, a clear outline of his route to go by!). In short, this book is a must on the bookshelf of anyone who wants to read a serious study of Alexander the Great.

Also available as an e-book