The case of Alexander of Lyncestis

The name Alexander is already very popular in the days of Alexander the Great and may lead to confusion. 

For a start, there was King Alexander of Epirus, Olympias’ brother and Alexander’s uncle. I usually refer to him as Alexandros to make the difference. He is the one who married Alexander’s sister Cleopatra in 336 BC, the day King Philip of Macedonia was assassinated. 

[Expansion of Macedonia from Wikipedia]

Then there is Alexander of Lyncestis, in Upper Macedonia, son of Aeropus and son-in-law of the general and later regent Antipater. He had two brothers, Heromenes and Arrhabaeus, who were soon accused of plotting the murder of Philip II and put to death. Brother Alexander is said to have been the first to proclaim Alexander of Macedonia as king and thus avoided punishment, for now at least. 

In Alexander’s campaign, the Lyncestian was soon appointed to command the Thracian detachment and later the Thessalian cavalry. However, two years later, Parmenion, who was spending the winter near Gordion, caught a messenger carrying a secret letter from the Persian King Darius for Alexander of Lyncestis. It revealed that Darius promised to pay him a thousand talents of gold to kill Alexander and would proclaim him King of Macedonia instead! Parmenion sent the messenger with a trusted escort to Alexander, where the man repeated the same story. 

This was an extremely serious matter that Alexander put before his assembled Companions in order to make the appropriate decision. It was agreed to send a trusted man, a brother of Craterus, to Parmenion. He would travel incognito, dressed as a local and accompanied by guides from Perge, and deliver his message verbally, as it was thought better not to write down anything on a matter of this importance. Alexander’s envoy reached Parmenion without being detected and reported the instructions he was carrying. Alexander of Lyncestis was arrested and put in chains. He was tried for plotting against his king and put in prison. Being the son-in-law of Antipater, acting as the king’s Regent in Macedonia, was an important factor in his favor. 

The Lyncestian was dragged around for about three years, when in 330 BC, in the wake of Philotas’ trial and execution for a similar plot, the Macedonians demanded that he should be tried and punished accordingly as well. When he was brought in from confinement to plead his case, he was faltering and nervous, and found no words to reply and defend himself. This was perceived as a guilty conscience, and the bystanders ran him through with their spears. 

It should be noted that Queen Eurydice I, Alexander’s paternal grandmother, was born in Lyncestis. She married King Amynthas III of Macedonia, the father of Philip II, in 390 BC to consolidate the relations between the two countries.

Macedonia’s influence in Pelagonia

The exact location of the Kingdom of Pelagonia is still eluding archaeologists and historians, but they agree that it is somewhere in the region of Bonče in Northern Macedonia, close to the Greek border. 

Based on historical sources, Pelagon was established in the early 4^th century BC as the capital of the Pelagonian tribe. In the Iliad, however, Homer mentions that Asteropaius, who fought against Achilles in Troy, is the son of King Pelagon. Many other historical and mythological figures go by the name Pelagon, which does not help to define who is who. 

The kingdom was known to be adjacent to Paeonia, and early in his kingship, Philip II of Macedonia campaigned in those countries north of Macedonia. Paeonia was led by Parmenion, who decided to rally to the side of the new king. What exactly happened elsewhere remains rather obscure. 

Between the villages of Bonče and Podme, a necropolis with several tumuli has been located. These tombs date from between the 4^th and the 2^nd centuries BC and are all in the Macedonian style. 

A larger grave site was surrounded by a circular stone wall, not unlike the Kasta Hill tomb of Amphipolis. Because of its impressive 30 meters in diameter, the tumulus has been attributed to a king of Pelagonia. A particularly long vaulted corridor of 20 meters, 2.95 meters high and 2.15 meters wide, led to the antechamber and the burial chamber proper. This room was rectangular and measured 8 x 6.6 meters with a height of 5.60 meters. Like the corridor, the main section of the tomb was cut into the rock surface and lined with large stone blocks that reached up to a length of three meters. 

All tombs had been thoroughly plundered well before WW1. The roofs of the burial chambers have been dismantled, and the stones reused in more recent local constructions. Although nothing of any historical value has been found inside the graves, the remains confirm that the 4^th century BC was a period of exceptional wealth.

In the fields of Bonče, not far from these grave sites, bits of three partially preserved royal shields have been discovered with a close link to Macedonia. They display a central sun with 12 rays surrounded by three concentric circles. Around these, a series of smaller suns with 8 rays are represented. 

One of the shields carried the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟ (King Demetrios). It is generally accepted that it belonged to Demetrios II of the Antigonid dynasty, whose ancestral capital Antigona was located not far from Bonče, but this is not certain. 

[Reconstruction picture from the Macedonian Times]

The symbolic meaning of each and every detail remains problematic, as so many variations have been found over the years. A handful of examples have been discussed in my earlier blog post, How Macedonian is a Macedonian shield?

[Two top pictures are from Wikipedia]

Location of Gordion confirmed

Excavations in Central Anatolia near Ankara at the presumed site of Gordion started in 1950. However, there was no actual confirmation that this assumption was correct – till now, that is. 

In a previous blog (see” Gordion, a name with resonance), I mentioned how Strabo described Gordion as being close to a river. Over the centuries, however, the nearby rivers have shifted, and today’s level is about eleven meters higher. Despite these alterations, today’s excavation site is located southeast of the confluence of the Sakarya and Prosuk Rivers, proving Strabo was right after all. 

When I visited this spot in 2007, I was told that the site might be Gordion – if not, evidently another important Phrygian settlement. There was a big outer city here, something in the style of Troy. The entrance gate had timber walls inside, which should help date it. The ramparts were built of two parallel stone walls, and the space in-between was filled with wood. 

The Cimmerians destroyed Gordion in 696 BC, and the ensuing fires preserved these walls to be covered later with alluvial mud up to four meters deep. Then the Lydians arrived and rebuilt the city, but it was again destroyed by the invading army of Cyrus the Great in 547-546 BC. 

As a satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire, the Persians installed a garrison at Gordion, which was eventually overthrown by Parmenion when he spent the winter of 333/334 BC here. We’ll remember that Alexander marched through Lycia in the south to regroup with Parmenion the following spring. In 278 BC, however, the city was destroyed by the Gauls and totally abandoned by 200 AD. 

Today Gordion is in the news because archaeologists have unearthed a stone with an inscription in the Phrygian language. It has been dated to the reign of Antiochus I, who reigned from 281 to 261 BC. For the first time, the name Gordion is mentioned. The stone was found in what is called the ancient city. 

The text is the longest inscription ever found in Gordion and written in Phrygian. It probably was part of a tumulus burial site. Currently, archaeologists and philologists are studying the inscription to present an understandable text to the public. [For a picture of the inscription, please click on this Arkeonews link]

The earliest Phrygian writing goes back to the 8th century BC, and they based their alphabet on the Phoenician. Later on, they used a version of the Greek alphabet. So far, eleven inscriptions on stone have been discovered and 245 graffiti, mostly on vases. Remarkably, despite this small number, Gordion is the richest source of early Phrygian writing.

How important was Barsine?

The question is actually double: How important was Barsine for Alexander? And how important was Barsine in the geopolitical world of her time? 

Authors from antiquity have not spent much ink on her, and she is only mentioned when she comes to the foreground, which isn’t often.  

Barsine was the daughter of Artabazus II, satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia in northwestern Turkey. Artabazus’ first wife was from Rhodes and was the sister of two capable generals, Mentor and Memnon. 

Artabazus revolted against the newly appointed Persian king, Artaxerxes III Ochus. Artaxerxes had ordered the dismantling of his mercenary army, which the satrap did not accept. Artabazus and his family (including Memnon) went into exile and found refuge at the court of Philip II in Pella. Barsine, who was fluent in Greek, must have met the younger Alexander during their stay. We don’t know the nature of their encounters or conversations, but we may safely assume that Alexander inquired about life and customs in Persia. After all, he impressed the Persian envoys at a young age as he questioned them pending his father’s return to the Palace. 

Three years later, Artabazus reconciled with the Persian king, and he returned to Persia, taking Barsine and his family with him. That happened in 343 BC, about one year after Aristotle arrived on the scene to teach Prince Alexander. Over the years, the entire company probably met the philosopher along with other distinguished visitors to the Macedonian court. 

Barsine married her uncle Mentor, a Greek mercenary general in Persian service, while she still was young. Mentor died soon afterward, leaving her with a daughter. In those circumstances, Memnon took her as his wife that same year, 338 BC. He already had several sons from a previous marriage. We can safely assume that Barsine’s opinion in these matters didn’t count. What’s more, she became a second mother to her husband's (teenage?) sons. Just as Mentor, Memnon led an army of mercenaries for the Great King. Having a lovely wife familiar with the Greek language and culture, no doubt, added to his prestige. 

In 334 BC, when Alexander, now king of Macedonia, faced the Persian army at the Granicus River, Memnon fought on the enemy’s side. Although the battle was lost, the general’s capabilities were recognized by Darius, and he was appointed as commander of the Persian fleet in the Aegean. This honor may be a questionable trust because, in exchange, Barsine had to stay at King Darius’ court with her father, Artabazus. 

A year later, during the siege of Lesbos Memnon fell ill and died. Barsine was widowed for a second time. 

Around that time, Alexander had reached Issus where he defeated Darius in November 333 BC. When Parmenion rode to Damascus to take hold of the Persian treasury, the baggage train, and the women of the aristocrats, he met Barsine and brought her to Alexander. 

Her relationship with Alexander lasted five or six years. I wonder whether she traveled with Darius’ mother, wife, and children, who had been taken in Issus. Alexander was constantly on the move, conquering the eastern Mediterranean and Egypt and marching to Babylon and Susa, where he finally installed the Persian Royal Family. Barsine stayed at Alexander’s side, and we can only guess which quarters she occupied when the army was on the road. 

During that time, Artabazus remained faithful to Darius until the Great King was murdered by Bessus, who then proclaimed himself the new king of Persia. Artabazus refused to submit to Bessus and left, taking his mercenaries with him. He joined Alexander, who rewarded him with the satrapy of Bactria. Here he was reunited with Barsine. 

She is mentioned again by ancient historians about 327 BC at the end of Alexander’s campaign in Sogdia. However, it is unclear in which order the events unfolded precisely. 

The fact is that Barsine became pregnant and gave birth to Heracles. Alexander never recognized his son, his first-born, although he must have loved him, giving him the name of his ancestors. Is it possible that Alexander resented Barsine for having Heracles without his consent? She and little Heracles stood in his way for his bigger plans, meaning to marry Princess Stateira as – probably – agreed with Sisygambis. Barsine must have known of those plans, so she had no excuse. 

It is, in any case, a strange coincidence that Alexander almost immediately married Roxane, the daughter of a local chieftain. This was not love at first sight, as most authors claim. It was a purely political move to end the three-year wars through Bactria and Sogdia. 

Artabazus requested to be relieved of his duties in Bactria because of his old age. Alexander accepted his resignation and Artabazus left for Pergamon taking Barsine and the little boy with him. Artabazus seems to have produced an elegant way to retire, and, at the same time, he created the best solution for Barsine since there was no longer a place for her at Alexander’s court. She had to say goodbye to the snow-topped mountains of the Hindu Kush after sharing so many miles with the Macedonian troops and her great love.

Barsine met Alexander again in 324 BC when she attended the mass wedding at Susa. Her daughter from Mentor married Nearchus. Two of her sisters were also given in marriage to Alexander’s companions, but the sources (Plutarch and Arrian) are at odds with each other about the names. 

Hardly a year later, Alexander died in Babylon. I wonder whether Barsine was still in nearby Susa, close enough to say her goodbyes to the man she once loved? If she returned to Pergamon after the wedding, she could never make it to Babylon in time. 

She and Heracles quietly spent the next decade in Pergamon. In 310 BC, Cassander as king of Macedonia, summoned Alexander IV, Alexander’s 14-year-old legitimate son with Roxane, to Pella to be poisoned. 

The news traveled fast and eventually reached Pergamon, as poor Heracles was now at the center stage in the drama of the Succession War. Initially, general Polyperchon had been defending the cause of the now 17-year-old Heracles, but in 309 BC, he fell into Cassander’s vicious trap. Cassander made many great promises of money and power in exchange for eliminating Heracles. For one hundred talents, Polyperchon tricked Heracles into accepting an invitation for dinner and poisoned him. Barsine, who had traveled with her son, was murdered shortly afterward, although some sources pretend she was murdered simultaneously. Sadly, Heracles didn’t even receive a proper burial in the cemetery of his ancestors, and neither did Barsine. 

Now about my questions formulated at the beginning of my post. How important was Barsine for Alexander? Well, she was important enough to keep her at his side for about six years. All this time, she managed not to get pregnant. Barsine knew that Alexander dearly wanted and needed an heir during those years of intimacy. She also knew that his plan was to marry a Persian princess. Barsine spoiled this by wanting a child of her own. Alexander had his principles and stuck to them. Nobody, not even sweet and gentle Barsine, was allowed to interfere. His sudden marriage to Roxane may be seen as a statement toward Barsine. Historians say Alexander fell in love with Roxane because of her beauty. In my mind, her beauty may be a nice bonus, but it was not the main reason. 

How important was Barsine in the geopolitical world of her time? Barsine was a beneficial source of information about the Persian court, Persian habits, and culture. After all, she had lived at least three years at the court of King Darius. Speaking Greek was an important asset to avoid misunderstandings. Alexander was an excellent judge of character, and having met Artabazus at Pella, he knew that he was a man of his word and could be trusted. Artabazus was loyal to Alexander. Having his daughter at the king’s side was a warranty that worked both ways. Barsine and her father contributed to Alexander’s larger plan. The birth of Heracles disturbed this goal – something Alexander never could or would accept. Barsine no longer fit his purpose in the new world he was building.

Dining the Persian way

“What disturbs me most is not your lack of respect for my judgment, it’s your contempt for a world far older than ours!” Alexander pronounced these words in Oliver Stone’s movie, casually placed in the king’s upcoming wedding with Roxane. It is just a detail, but one that resonates much further than we may see at first glance. 

For the Greeks and the Macedonians, the Persians were Barbarians. They certainly could not imagine their refined culture, splendid cities and monuments, and accoutrements. As a great admirer of Cyrus, the very founder of the Achaemenid dynasty, Alexander clearly understood that Persia was much older than Greece and consequently had built up a richer civilization. 

Oliver Stone rightfully illustrated the grandeur and richness of the Persian Empire in Babylon when he orchestrated Alexander’s triumphal entrance march! This was the first major city the Macedonians saw with their own eyes, leaving them in total awe. The pomp and circumstance of Persepolis and Susa added to their astonishment and wonder. 

Although Alexander and his companions were familiar with the palaces of Aegae and Pella, these edifices could in no way compete with anything in Persia. Athens was a gem of its own right, with the shining Parthenon finished a good hundred years before. In contrast, Persian history, refinement, protocol, and wealth testified to their cultural superiority. It must have been a real shock to most of the army. Even Alexander and his close companions were not prepared to deal with this immeasurable and boundless wealth. 

Our thoughts automatically drift to the gold and the luxurious furnishing and ornamentation of the palaces. Still, we hardly would think of food, the oriental way to serve it and savor it. In the Greek Symposia, an all-male gathering, food was secondary to the meeting proper. The banquet started with a meal, and the wine continued to be served till the end of the occasion. More importantly, the host would regulate the wine intake since it was cut with the amount of water he determined for the entire duration. 

On the other hand, the Persians drank their wine straight, and sumptuous occasions called for much drinking. The long duration and the overall glamour contributed to creating extraordinarily refined and elegant events. The wide choice of savory, sweet foods like dates, for example, was a luxury unknown to many Greeks. 

Dining was an occasion to display Persian magnificence and sumptuousness, not only in their setting but also in the dishes themselves. The diners’ behavior, however, was far from elegant. Since the flow of the wine was not overseen by a host or similar master of ceremony, the Persians often became violent and not seldom harassed the king’s women who attended the meal. In this light, it is not surprising that the Greeks saw them as Barbarians! 

In both cultures, fish and meat were widely present on the menu. The main difference was that the Greeks generally roasted their meat and fish, whereas the Persians preferred simmered, slowly cooked meals. They enriched their marinades with exotic fruits and spices imported from as far as India, including saffron. Bread, rice, and eggplant, delicate sauces further enhanced the dishes. After the main dish, there was plenty of room for sweets and fruits as part of the following dishes offered. A marriage of foods occurred during the lifetime of Alexander and lasted for centuries entering today’s flavors and gastronomic influences in the world, particularly in the Mediterranean. 

It is said that in its heyday, the Persian Empire was the leader in refined gastronomy. Arrian casually mentioned the regiments of cooks attached to the Persian king’s services when Parmenion took Damascus. The Persian baggage train with noblemen's wives was camping there pending the outcome of the Battle of Issus (not expecting their defeat). 

Even today, it is hard to imagine the refined cooking and presentation of the meals marking special occasions such as the mass wedding in Susa. Cooks must have been busy day and night preparing an array of meats, fish, vegetables, and fruits for thousands of guests (9.000 according to our sources!). The logistics to cart the meat, fish, fruits, and vegetables to the palace grounds are achievements on their own. 

At that time, Alexander’s army was no longer all Macedonian but integrated with peoples from Persia, Central Asia, and India. The food habits in the camp had changed accordingly. In a way, Alexander conquered land and people with their specific cultures, including a wide variety of their diets. In his wake and thanks to the later Roman Empire, the Spiced Road was born with tentacles far beyond the lands touched by Alexander. 

Modern visitors to Greece, Turkey, and the Middle East experience these exotic tastes and other flavors when served a typical local meal. We accept them as a matter of course, but the issue was entirely different for those living 2,500 years ago. Most people never left their hometown unless to war with the neighboring settlement. Persia, which was much larger than today’s Iran, was at the other end of the world as far as they were concerned. To them, the world appeared from an entirely different perspective. 

The Greek-Italian chef Giorgio Pintzas Monzani wrote several pertinent articles on this subject in the Greek Reporter, which inspired me to write the present post.

[Top and second picture from Asia Food]

Rewriting the events leading to the Battle of Gaugamela

Our history of Alexander the Great is mainly based on what the Greek sources tell us, picked up by later authors like Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch. We have ignored what Persian sources could say because of the difficulty deciphering the often fragmentary texts written on clay tablets from the Babylonian Library or on papyri from the Oxyrhynchus site in Egypt.

Watching a documentary from 2009 of Michael Wood searching for the plain of Gaugamela in war-ridden northern Iraq revived the battle scenario of Alexander against Darius as seen from the Persian point of view, i.e., contemporary to Alexander. Michael Wood had an in-depth conversation with Prof. Irving Finkel of the British Museum, handling several cuneiform tablets.  

These cuneiform clay tablets belong to the Astronomical Diaries kept in the temple of the Babylonian god Marduk. The diaries contain daily observations of the sky and all kinds of information about the current political events, the water level of the Euphrates and Tigris, the food prices, and other various topics, and the meteorological records. Over the past two centuries, millions of these tablets have surfaced from all over Mesopotamia. The majority has not yet been deciphered, leaving us with wide lacunas. Therefore, the work of Prof. Irving Finkle is very commendable. 

With Michael Wood, he concentrated on three lines on these tablets that require careful consideration in the case of Gaugamela. 

That month, the eleventh [corresponds to 18 September 331 BC], panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king [must be Darius at Arbela].

This inscription suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized or were reluctant to fight. 

The twenty-fourth [corresponds to 1 October 331 BC], in the morning, the king of the world [meaning Alexander as King of Asia] erected his standard [lacuna]. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops. The king, his troops deserted him and to their cities [they went] They fled to the land of the Guti [meaning the road to Ecbatana]

These lines shed a very different light on the battle as opposed to what Greek historians wrote about Darius turning his chariot around and leaving his soldiers behind (see: "The troops of the king deserted him"). If the Persian troops left their king, that would be a totally different situation.

Prof. Irving understands that “the king’s men deserted him” means the Persians refused to fight. This may very well involve Mazaeus at Gaugamela, as he was holding the right flank facing Parmenion’s contingent. Was the confrontation on that end of the long Persian front really as fierce as our Greek narratives want us to believe, with Parmenion’s flank crumbling down? Or was it mainly a show to save face vis-à-vis King Darius?

If the soldiers on that flank (the Persian right) were not ready to engage in a fight, Alexander could more easily concentrate on his own right flank. Thus, he executed his whirling move and rode towards Darius through the formed gap. Darius fled from the battlefield, but it transpired that many of his troops had turned back before their king did. 

We may wonder whether, instead of an act of bravery or military genius on Alexander’s part, the battle was won thanks to the bribes of some of Darius’ generals, including Mazaeus (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela). 

On the eleventh [corresponds to 18 October 331 BC], in Sippar [this is just north of Babylon] an order of Alexander to the Babylonians was sent as follows: 'Into your houses I shall not enter.'

Here, the tablets are quoting Alexander verbatim as he confirms that he would not enter the houses of Babylon. In other words, he officially declares that his troops will not plunder the city. This was clearly a pre-arranged gesture. 

The above calls for some further explanation. 

Let’s consider the nearly obvious bribe of Mazaeus. We have to go back to the banks of the Euphrates, where Hephaistion was building two bridges over the Euphrates at its narrowest point near Thapsacus (see: Crossing the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers). The Persian general had arrived on the other side and watched Hephaistion’s construction progress for several days. Hephaistion stopped his operation short of the opposite riverbank as he did not want to see the end of his bridges destroyed by Mazaeus. Work was at a stalemate till Alexander appeared with the bulk of his army, and Mazaeus turned around to scorch more earth in front of the enemy’s advance as ordered by Darius. 

Mazaeus had 2,000 Greek mercenaries at his service. They must have been happy to talk to the Macedonians on the opposite bank to exchange the latest news during the stalemate. Robin Lane Fox implies that Mazaeus (who, having been satrap of Cilicia, spoke Greek) at that time could have forged some agreement with Hephaistion in view of the upcoming battle. At first sight, this seems outlandish, but this is very plausible on second thought. Hephaistion was often sent on diplomatic missions by Alexander, and the events on the bank of the Euphrates may well have been one such occasion. While he was waiting, Hephaistion had ample time to consult Alexander, still marching towards him. Such a private agreement would inevitably shed totally new light on the upcoming fight at Gaugamela (see: Two key afterthoughts on Gaugamela). 

As soon as Darius left the battlefield, Mazaeus followed suit and rode to Babylon. When Alexander approached the city some three weeks later, he was met by Mazaeus, who surrendered himself and the city. This has been recorded by Curtius and certainly fits into the prearranged agreement! 

Babylon was a well-defended stronghold with a 68 km-long wall that would have been a tough nut to crack had Mazaeus not surrendered it to the new King of Asia (see: Babylon and Alexander’s reorganization of the army). 

In his search for the battlefield location, Michael Wood also talked to Lt General Sir Robert Fry, head of British Forces in Iraq, who was in charge of his security. The general is a historian and fervent admirer of Alexander the Great, with his own views on the military aspect. He says that, in figures, the Battle of Gaugamela was perhaps the biggest in history until Napoleon! It decided the fate of Asia. 

He further adds that - like all great leaders in history - Alexander left no weapon unused – even the gods. Alexander did not make his last sacrifice to Phoebus because he was afraid, but he wished fear and terror on the Persians! True to his generalship, Robert Fry marvels at the logistics of bringing an army of 50,000 to Iraq, 80,000 to Persia, and even more to India. Imagine the long supply line! 

The general also looks at the upcoming battle from Darius’ side and confirms that he has taken all necessary precautions. He had a superior cavalry with heavier horses, had the strength of numbers, and the battle itself was well prepared. The plan of the Persian king was to breach the phalanx in order to break the cohesion of the Macedonian army at its center and then envelop the outnumbered Macedonians. Darius had not expected Alexander to stretch the army to his right and create an opening to ride straight at him. The battle was not about their numbers, the general continued, but it came down to the decisions of two individuals. 

These are fascinating statements and ideas. General Fry ends with words along the line of “Alexander’s idea of defeating the Persians may be his idea of linking the eastern and western empires by trade routes and by an army integrated in ethnic terms. These are extraordinary imaginative ideas! Alexander was a globalist. He would thoroughly understand the world today.” How true that is!

[Pictures 2 and 3 are from Oliver Stone's movie Alexander]