Serious excavation plans in Termessos

Back in 2018, I shared the news about the restoration of Termessos’ city walls and the clearing of the ancient road that connected the city to ancient Attaleia (modern Antalya). 

Presently, more serious excavation works are being planned in Termessos. For a start, a monumental tomb that once held several marble sarcophagi will be pieced together using the scattered and now numbered blocks lying around. Apparently, all the original stones have been listed. Unfortunately, the Hurriyet Daily News does not disclose its location. 

I found the choice the archaeologists made to start with the monumental tomb quite surprising, ignoring the more obvious remains of the Theatre, the Temple of Hadrian, the Temple of Artemis, the Bouleuterion, the Agora, and other recognizable constructions. 

Next excavations will, however, focus on the Gate of Hadrian, hopefully extending to the nearby Temple of Artemis from the 2^nd century BC. Other necropolises, the aqueducts, and cisterns may also be included in this project. 

Until now, only the exceptional remains of the Tomb of Alcetas have been identified. This general, brother of Perdiccas, fought with Alexander in India, and died here in Termessos in 319 BC during the siege of the city in the War of the Diadochi. 

The beauty and challenge of Termessos is that its remains have been left mostly untouched and protected as part of the National Park of Güllük Dagi, with its rich diversity of fauna and flora.

Cynane buried next to her father, Philip II

Cynane was Alexander’s half-sister, born around 357 BC. Her mother was Audata from Illyria (see: The many wives of Philip II of Macedonia), whom King Philip had married to secure his expanding kingdom. 

Philip gave Cynane in marriage to Amyntas, who was the legal successor to the throne of Macedonia after his father, King Perdiccas III of Macedonia, died in combat in 359 BC. As Amyntas was only a child, Philip, Perdiccas' younger brother, became his tutor and regent. Later that year, Philip was elected king instead.

After Philip's murder in 336 BC, Amyntas could have taken his chances, but he did not, for whatever reason. The newly elected King Alexander, however, did not hesitate and had Amyntas killed. He could have suspected that Cynane would manipulate her husband to gain power. Cynane was left a widow, raising her daughter Adea alone. Not for long, though.

When Alexander made his way to Pelium in 335 BC, he faced a threatening revolt of the Illyrians, and Langaros, King of the Agrianes, came to his rescue. In recognition of his assistance, Alexander invited Langaros to Pella, offering his half-sister Cynane in marriage. Before this wedding could materialize, Langaros fell ill and died (see: The short-lived appearance of King Langaros).  

Cynane stayed in Macedonia as Alexander left for Asia. Having been raised by her mother in the Illyrian tradition as a warrior, equal to any man, she now instilled the same values in her daughter. 

Upon Alexander’s death, Cynane saw her chances, not for herself but for Adea. She mobilized her troops and led her daughter and her army to Babylon to secure their future by arranging the marriage of Adea with Alexander’s successor. 

As the daughter of Philip II and Alexander’s half-sister, Cynane enjoyed the loyalty of the Macedonian army, despite General Perdiccas’ disagreement. The general tried to stop her in every possible way and sent Alcetus, who killed Cynane before she could speak. This assassination did not sit well with the Macedonian army, who revolted and demanded that Adea, Alexander’s niece, marry Alexander’s half-brother, the simple-minded Arrhidaeus. Arrhidaeus, who was the only available bloodline, would rule as King Philip III, and Adea would become Queen Eurydice II. She was the power behind Philip III, which was not to the liking of Queen Olympias. She had Philip III killed in 317 BC and Eurydice II imprisoned and forced her to commit suicide. 

This long introduction brings me to the tomb of Philip II and the adjacent tomb of a woman in Vergina. Since its discovery in 1977 when Manolis Andronicos attributed the tomb to Philip II and the remains in the smaller room to his seventh and last wife, Cleopatra, many arguments have erupted, presenting different theories. 

Recently, I watched a presentation on the History Channel*, about the gold quiver or goritos found in this tomb. Scholars agree that it is Scythian and not Macedonian, made between 900 and 200 BC. Next, the question arose whether it had belonged to Philip or to the woman. If it was the woman’s, who was she, and could she be a descendant of the fiercest Scythian female warriors, the mythical Amazons? 

The breakthrough occurred when the female bones and pelvis from the smaller room were analyzed. It is known that a woman’s pelvis changes during life, and it could be determined that this example was between 30 and 35 years old. 

Adea/Eurydice was only 20 years old when she had to take her life. She is not a candidate to be interred in Vergina. This conclusion automatically excludes earlier debates presenting Philip Arrhidaeus as the main occupant. 

The only remaining person obviously is Cynane, Alexander’s half-sister, who was 34 years old when she was murdered on the orders of General Perdiccas. 

It was also established that the two chambers of the Vergina Tomb were not built at the same time. Since Cynane died 13 years after her father, it is entirely plausible that her tomb was added next to her father’s at a later date. 

The program concluded with an extra note regarding the Scythian goritos (that was worn around the waist). After examining the DNA of the remains found in the Scythian kurgans, the scholars concluded that not all warriors were men, as 1/3 of the burial sites were built for women. 

Cynane must have been quite a character, raised as a warrior and a match to any man. No wonder the Macedonian troops were horrified when she was murdered in cold blood. It is quite remarkable that she lived one year longer than Alexander. Whoever arranged for her to be buried next to Philip was well aware of her courage and battle spirit. Maybe her father had been attracted to Audata for that same reason, who knows?

*2023 Strangest Things on History Channel

[Picture of Cynane's larnax and Facade of Philip's tomb are from Wikipedia; Goritos picture from this link Wikipedia]

“To the strongest”

“To the strongest” are the last words Alexander pronounced on his deathbed in Babylon when pressed to name his successor. 

His Companions and generals were obviously panicking at the thought of being left behind so many miles away from Macedonia without their king to guide them. They desperately needed him. 

Ever since he became king in 336 BC Alexander had shown his commanders the way and led his men by example. He certainly did not expect to die at the age of 33 and not in his bed. How could he have foreseen to be incapacitated and unable to be his own self? 

The only person who had always been at his side and enjoyed his full confidence had died the previous year. Hephaistion had been officially appointed as his Chiliarch, his second in command. The sudden death of his dearest friend left him in total disarray and maddened by grief. He was truly alone at a time when he had to make the hardest decision of his life and elect a successor. “Who, Alexander? Tell us who!” are the words Oliver Stone put in the mouth of Ptolemy. How appropriate! 

“To the strongest” has often been understood as a weak and evasive statement, although, in reality, Alexander’s last words are one final proof of his genius! Had he not been so much afflicted by his illness and impaired by the high fever, he would have found the strength to elaborate a solution to the Succession with his close Companions. He would likely have appointed Perdiccas. Even so, Alexander’s decision may have lost its power two years onward, and the commanders would have taken the matter into their own hands anyway.

Of course, everyone around the king’s deathbed still hoped to be appointed and hear his name called out. However, matters were not as straightforward as one might think. On the one hand, he had to name an heir since, as King, he needed a successor, and on the other hand, as commander in chief of his army, he had to appoint a capable military leader. 

At this point, his most experienced generals were Craterus and Perdiccas. Yet, Craterus was in Cilicia taking 10,000 veterans back to Macedonia with Alexander’s instructions to replace Antipater as Regent in Pella. Perdiccas was in Babylon and took the king’s succession into his hands. 

Roxane was pregnant, but the child had not been born yet, and there was no guarantee it would be a boy. Alexander had never recognized Heracles, his son by Barsine. In any case, Roxane’s son and Heracles were too young to rule, and the generals would have to choose a Regent pending their coming of age. The next best option was to push Arrhideus forward. He was Alexander’s simple-minded half-brother and not capable of becoming the de facto ruler. As a result, Perdiccas was elected Regent at the Partition of Babylon. 

This implied, however, that he would rule over Alexander’s Companions and generals. Perdiccas’ success was short-lived, though, and in 321 BC he was sidelined at Triparadeisus as the commanders decided to divide the kingdom among themselves. When Perdiccas escorted Alexander’s remains to be buried in Macedonia, Ptolemy hijacked the mummified body and took it to Egypt. In a desperate attempt to recover his king’s remains, Perdiccas failed totally to march his men across the Nile. His losses were so excessive that his soldiers revolted and killed him. 

These were uncertain times for all the parties involved in the Succession Wars. They all had the ambition to rule over Alexander’s Empire and felt equally qualified to do so, but none shared Alexander’s vision. Ultimately, they eliminated each other until the empire was divided between Ptolemy, Seleucos, Antigonus, and Cassander (see: Dividing the Spoils. The War for Alexander’s Empire by Robin Waterfield).

None of the great men who fought alongside Alexander for almost twelve years emerged as the strongest. They all had learned a lot, but none could come close to Alexander’s charisma and exceptional genius.

Lysimachos in the wake of Alexander – Part I

Lysimachos was in Babylon at the time of Alexander’s death in 323 BC. Almost immediately, anarchy erupted as the king had no successor. Every single one of his generals felt entitled to succeed Alexander pending the coming of age of his yet unborn son. 

The War of the Diadochi had begun and would last for the next forty years or so. The generals took sides, changed sides, and made peace treaties but coveted each other’s possessions soon after. Their lust for power led them to conquer ever more land. They eliminated each other systematically until around 280 BC; four contenders remained: Ptolemy in Egypt, Seleucos in Asia, Antipater / Cassander in Macedonia/Greece, and Lysimachos in Thrace. 

Lysimachos’ origin is obscure, and the best guess is that he was born around 361 BC to Thessalian parents living in Pella. He was educated at the court of Philip and was probably one of his Bodyguards. He was only a few years older than Alexander, and we can safely assume that he joined the young prince in Mieza to attend Aristotle’s teaching with the other selected young men. 

Historians hardly mention Lysimachos in Alexander’s early campaigns, although he was present throughout the king’s conquests of Persia as one of his trusted Bodyguards. This lack of information does not imply that Lysimachos was not a valued element in Alexander’s organization. Many positions beyond that of a general were of the utmost importance. Take, for instance, the logistics of the entire enterprise, or the scouting parties to locate otherwise hidden enemies or find the appropriate location for the following camping site, or escorting Queen Sisygambis and her retinue till their arrival at Susa, and many other tasks. 

Lysimachos joined the ranks of the Companion Cavalry, maybe after several of Alexander’s masterly reshuffling of the army according to his needs. 

Except for him being mauled by a lion in Syria, he was not documented until 328 BC, when Alexander crossed the Hydaspes River. There is no further information. 

Lysimachos participated in the siege of Sangala (see: The siege of Sangala). Alexander lost less than one hundred men in this fierce fight, but an excessive number of 1200 soldiers were wounded, including Lysimachos. 

He was evidently present at the Susa Wedding in 324 BC, but we don’t know the name of his bride. Since she is not mentioned when he moves to Thracia, we may conclude that he left her behind after Alexander’s death, at which time he became ruler of Thracia. 

The position of Thracia was strategically crucial as the land extended to the Black Sea and the Hellespont, both major links with Asia. Upon arrival, Lysimachos faced the rebellious Thracian tribes fighting each other. Their most powerful dynasty was the Seuthes. However, Lysimachos was quickly able to establish his authority. 

As the War of Alexander’s Successors raged on with the other generals fighting among themselves, Lysimachos managed to stay away from their intrigues. 

In 321 BC, to stabilize his position further, he decided to marry Nicaea, Antipater’s daughter, after Perdiccas had refused her hand. This alliance secured his position vis-à-vis both Antipater and Cassander. The couple would have three children: one son, Agathocles, and two daughters. 

In 315 BC, a revolt broke out among the cities on the Black Sea. Antigonus Monophthalmus, who reigned over most of Asia Minor, saw an opportunity to annex Thrace to his own territory and stirred up the local tribes against their king. Once again, Lysimachos managed to suppress the revolt and consolidate his power. Peace was reached in 311 BC. 

This revolt drew him into the Succession Wars, and he sided with Cassander, Ptolemy, and Seleucos against Antigonus Monophthalmus. In 309 BC, to secure the Hellespont, he built a new city, Lysimachia, in a commanding location on the Chersonese peninsula. 

By 305 BC, all the contestants in the Wars of the Diadochi adopted the title of king and Lysimachos followed suit by assuming the royal title as well. He was now an equal player in the succession game of the thrones. 

In 302 BC, Lysimachos again joined forces with Cassander to conquer Asia Minor from Antigonus Monophthalmus. As winter approached, he set up camp in Herakleia Pontus, where he met Amastris, granddaughter of Queen Sisygambis, who had been given as wife to Craterus at the Susa Wedding. She left her husband after he took Arsinoe of Egypt as his wife, who became the widowed Queen of Herakleia. So, Lysimachos married Amastris, but this marriage didn’t last long, for soon afterward, he decided to take as spouse Arsinoe, daughter of Ptolemy. Consequently, Amastris left Lysimachos and returned to Herakleia Pontus (see: Time to reconnect with Princess Amastris). 

In fact, with his marriages, Lysimachos was in line with the other Successors or contenders who still aimed at re-establishing Alexander’s empire. Marriage was much cheaper than war to conquer more land.

 [continued in Part II]

Who decided on the mummification of Alexander?

Alexander’s death in Babylon and the cause of his death have been discussed before (see: A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander the Great). This time, I would like to concentrate on his embalmment. 

Arrian does not mention what happened after Alexander’s death since the accounts of both Ptolemy and Aristobulus stopped at this point. However, he adds a splendid eulogy to the greatness of Alexander. Diodorus follows the same idea, stating that “He accomplished greater deeds than any, not only of the kings who had lived before him but also of those who were to come later down to our time.” 

Only Curtius’ history continues describing the mourning in the streets of Babylon by friend and foe, the earliest rivalry between the generals, and all kinds of intrigues that followed the king’s death. He is the only one to mention that Alexander lay unattended for seven days before his friends reentered the room. So much for a “friend,” right? He reports how his body did not show any sign of decay despite the Babylonian heat. As a result, the Egyptians and Chaldeans, "who were ordered” to care for the body, hesitated to handle it. It is only after they prayed to their gods for approval that “they emptied his body of entrails.” He goes on by saying that the gold coffin was filled with perfumes, yet nothing about the honey that covered Alexander’s body as seen by those who paid their respects to him years later in Alexandria. 

Several questions arise after reading these accounts. Curtius, for instance, is the only one to tell us about the widespread quarrel among the generals and troops alike (not yet about the matter of succession) and about the decision to embalm Alexander’s body. Plutarch casually remarks that the body remained unattended for several days. 

What transpires is that nobody stayed at Alexander’s bedside after he was declared dead. It is baffling and truly unacceptable vis-à-vis the King of Macedonia, the King of Kings, to be left without a single soul at his side to mourn him? Macedonia must have had a set procedure for treating the deceased king. Persia undoubtedly had a very ancient court protocol for such occasions! Yet, Alexander was left alone and unattended. Incredible! 

About a week later, the king’s entourage seemed to remember that their king was dead and required burial of some kind. According to Curtius, who appears the only source on this matter, “Egyptians and Chaldeans were ordered to care for the body.” Nobody says who issued such an order. The priests certainly would not act on their own to handle the remains of the King of Kings, the most powerful man of the world! Was there any discussion about the procedure and the choice of a funeral? 

In Macedonia, a king would be cremated on a fancy pyre, as was done for King Philip and even applied for Hephaistion. What did the Persian tradition prescribe? I suppose a burial since the Tomb of Cyrus contained his bodily remains, although we don’t know if the corpse had been embalmed or not. In ancient Mesopotamia, everything indicates that they buried the bodies in the earth since, according to their creation myth, Ea (Enki) had created humans out of the earth's soil. So they naturally 'return' the body to the earth once the person has died. However, in Alexander’s case, the priests “emptied his body of entrails,” which indicates an Egyptian tradition. 

How, then, was it decided that Alexander should be mummified? His body was originally to return to Macedonia. The royal tradition was that their lineage would simply die if the king was not buried in his homeland. At this stage, there were no known plans to bring the king’s corpse to Egypt at all. So, maybe it was decided to keep his body in good condition until it reached Macedonia, which actually meant years later. The only people of authority present in Babylon were Alexander’s generals, who seem, however, to have been more occupied with their own importance in the wake of their king’s death than with the proper burial – or any burial at all for that matter. 

I cannot imagine Perdiccas suggesting mummification, or Nearchus, or any other commander present, except maybe Ptolemy. At a very early stage, he had decided to take Egypt as his share. Not only that, but there were rumors that Ptolemy may have been an illegitimate son of Philip, making him Alexander’s half-brother. This has never been established, but the relationship was a public secret. At this stage, Ptolemy may have carried more weight than the other generals to suggest mummification. He will, however, have been careful not to disclose his secret plan to take Alexander to Egypt. Who knows? 

Another possibility is that the commanders were still fighting each other and had not decided where to bury their king despite leaving him unattended for about a week. The obvious place was Macedonia, but Babylon as the new capital of Alexander’s Empire may have been another candidate. Pending a final decision, it was wise to embalm the body to preserve it the best they could. 

But who performed the embalming on so short a notice? It is highly improbable that priests could have been summoned so quickly from Egypt. Maybe Alexander had some Egyptian doctors or priests in his entourage? That is not as far-fetched as it appears because at the time of the moon eclipse, shortly before the Battle of Gaugamela, when the army was wildly panicking, we know some Egyptian priests were present. They had told Alexander and his Macedonians that this was only an astronomical phenomenon - and hence, nothing to be worried about. This shows that he had kept Egyptian priests with him already then. These priests most certainly were familiar with the religious embalming process and able to preserve Alexander’s body for the long journey home. 

Craftsmen from across the empire created an unsurpassed funerary golden catafalque. Alexander’s preserved body was placed inside a gold sarcophagus inlaid with precious stones. It was covered with a purple funerary pall embroidered with gold, on top of which lay his armor and Trojan shield. After two years of careful and intense work, the shrine was ready, and the funeral cortege left Babylon for Pella.

As we know, the cortege never reached Macedonia since Ptolemy seized the catafalque in Syria and took it to Egypt. As the city of Alexandria was not yet entirely built, Alexander’s sarcophagus was temporarily kept in Memphis. We owe it to Ptolemy’s son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, to give Alexander his last resting place in his Alexandria. 

In the following centuries, the tomb was visited by many Roman emperors till it disappeared from history. That was between the mid-3rd century and the last quarter of the 4th century AD.

A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander the Great

About two years ago, I posted a blog about the death of Alexander based on the analysis made by Dr Katherine Hall, a Senior Lecturer at the Dunedin School of Medicine and an academic of the University of Otago, New Zealand. Her conclusion was that the king did not die from excessive drinking, poisoning or any other disease, but from the neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome, in short GBS (see: Did Alexander the Great die from an infection?) 

It so happened that a few days ago, I saw another article mentioning this diagnosis of Guillain-Barré Syndrome. It was published by the New York Post in early 2019, just like the one I commented on above. The title of their article Alexander the Great was ‘buried alive’ after disease paralyzed him was true propaganda to trigger the attention of the readers. 

This Guillain-Barré Syndrome rang a bell with me and I returned to my own blog to look at the many theories about Alexander’s death. In my previous research, I found that gastroenteritis was presented as the main cause for GBS and I had stopped there. This time, however, I started a new search. As a result, I found that Healthline as well as The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes include a lung infection as a possible cause of GBS although the gastroenteritis is more widely quoted and admitted. This is very distracting because we are led to overlook this lung infection that is mentioned so casually.

At this point, I recalled how Alexander had been fatally wounded during the Malian attack and how he hovered for many days between life and death. An arrow, three feet long, had hit him, piercing through his corselet deep into his chest above his breast. It has not been established whether the barbed arrow had been readily removed by Perdiccas, who cut it out with this sword upon the king’s order, or if it was skillfully operated by his physician. Alexander was hemorrhaging and lost a lot of blood. Because the arrow punctured the wall of his lung, the king was breathing air and blood through the cut, meaning that he suffered excruciating pain at each and every draw of breath. In time, his skin stuck to his lung, and according to some sources, the wound kept oozing a mixture of fluid and blood. History, afterwards, remained silent about the health conditions of the king.

It is clear, however, that Alexander never entirely recovered from this injury. His extensive march through the Gedrosian Desert will not have done him any good, and the unhealthy conditions of the marshes surrounding Babylon were a fertile ground for infection. This is precisely what I was thinking of when I read that GBS may have been caused by a lung infection. His immune system had attacked his nervous system, which led to gradually paralyzing his body, including the eyes but not his brain! Hence, the title of the article is that Alexander was buried alive.

The death of Alexander remains shrouded in many mysteries because so much has been hushed and covered up. After the king was pronounced dead, we are flooded with stories of the many conflicts among his generals about his succession, but it appears nobody showed any concern for Alexander’s body. None of the ancient authors, like Arrian, Diodorus, or Plutarch, spent any ink on what happened next; they all remained silent about it. 

Only Curtius tells us what happened afterwards: “when at last his friends had leisure to care for Alexander’s lifeless body, those who had entered the room saw it corrupted by no decay, nor even by the slightest discoloration. The vigor too which comes from the breath of life had not yet left his face. And so the Egyptians and Chaldeans who were ordered to care for the body after their manner, at first, as if he were still breathing, did not dare to lay their hands upon him; then after praying that it might be right and lawful for mortals to handle a god, they emptied the body of entrails, the golden coffin was filled with perfumes, and the emblem of his rank was placed upon the king’s head”. 

This could mean that Alexander was in a coma during those days of neglect or that he was in a state of near-death. The medical knowledge of that time had no way to diagnose this as we would today. However, it is comforting to hear that the priests prayed that it might be right and lawful for mortals to handle a god before they started the embalmment. I like to believe that their prayers were answered.

Among modern historians, and as far as I know, only Robin Lane Fox has put his worries about Alexander’s health in writing. He stated that the wound would hamper the king for the rest of his life and that walking would be “an act of extreme courage” – nothing less! Whenever possible, Alexander travelled by horse, chariot, or boat. So much for the faithful reports of our historians!

In the end, it is my personal opinion that this Guillain-Barré Syndrome is a very plausible cause for Alexander’s death and not his presumed drinking bouts as advertised by ancient and modern historians alike.

Indo-Greek blacksmith discovered in Pakistan

Peshawar is the first city in Pakistan that Hephaistion and Perdiccas reached with about half the Macedonians as they proceeded east from the Khyber Pass to build a bridge over the Indus River. Alexander, with the other half of his troops, marched north along the Kunar/Chitral River to take the Aornos Rock (modern Pir Sar).

[Picture from the Archaeology News Network - Credit : Dawn]

It is close to Peshawar that Pakistani archaeologists found the remains of iron workshops, dating them to the 2^nd century BC, a period known as the Indo-Greek. They base their statement on tools retrieved from the site, like iron melting pots, molds, trowels, knives, and drills that were used to make bows and arrows, daggers, and swords. The archaeologists have also unearthed remains of furnaces and grinding stones, all leading to the labeling of the site as a blacksmith.

Excavations have also revealed coins from the Indo-Greek period, but without further details. It would have been interesting, however, to know, for instance, the name of the king(s) depicted on these coins in order to narrow down the time frame.

Anyway, it is great to gather every bit of information about the Indo-Greek period since so little is available due to the fact that this empire has not been subject to systematic excavations.

The Khyber Pass into India

On their return from Sogdiana (see: End of Alexander’s Campaign in Central Asia), the Macedonians spent a well-deserved rest of six months at Alexandria-in-the-Caucasus (Begram) in the heart of the Kabul Valley. Here, Alexander worked hard to reshuffle and reorganize his army.

[Map is from the Encyclopaedia Britannica]

His strategic phalanx was dismantled since it no longer served its purpose after the Bactrian guerilla wars. The mounted Lancers joined the Companion Cavalry together with the skillful horsemen from Bactria and Sogdiana, to which he added 2,000 horse-archers from Spitamenes’ nomads.

On another level, the commanding posts needed to be redistributed after the execution of Philotas and Parmenion and the murder of Cleitos. Their detachments were split between Ptolemy, Hephaistion, Perdiccas, and Leonnatus. The Royal Shield Bearers were promoted to the title of Silver Shields (Argyraspids), led by Seleucos and Nearchus, under the supreme command of Neoptolemus. The Royal Squadron of Companions remained under Alexander’s own command. These Cavalry Commanders and trusted squadron leaders enabled him to divide his army more freely between different locations at any one time.

That winter of 327 BC, the entire army was on the march again, with their forces divided in two. Hephaistion and Perdiccas are sent ahead to the Indus in order to prepare the crossing of that river with half the Companions and all the mercenary cavalry. The timing is well chosen to avoid the summer heat upon arrival in India. With the other half of the troops, Alexander starts his march up the Kunar Valley into the Swat Valley in modern Pakistan.

There is little or no information about the expedition of Hephaistion and Perdiccas as they head east. It is clear that to reach the Indus River, they must cross the Hindu Kush Mountains again. The obvious route this time leads over the Khyber Pass. Even today, the main road from Kabul to Peshawar runs over the same mountain pass.

The Khyber Pass is situated at an elevation of 1070 meters and is 53 kilometers long. The passage varies between 3 and 137 meters in width, meaning that the Macedonians had to cope with the inevitable bottlenecks. On top of that, the Khyber Pass is walled in by steep cliffs towering 200-300 meters above the men’s heads.

It is not known how long it took Hephaistion and Perdiccas to get across the pass, only that they marched to Peucelaotis and hence to the Indus. Their instructions, according to Arrian, were that they had to take all the places they encountered, either by force or by agreement.

Peucelaotis, however, resisted. Hephaistion besieged the town for thirty days, after which the defenders surrendered, maybe simply because their governor, Astes, was killed. The newly appointed governor was a certain Sangaeus who had deserted Astes some time before to join Taxiles. This made the man trustworthy.

Eventually, Hephaistion and Perdiccas reached the River Indus at Ohind/Hund (near modern Attock) in Punjab. Here, they built a fleet of thirty-oared galleys and a pontoon bridge of linked boats spanning the river, which at this point is at least 400 to 500 meters wide. This operation is not to be underestimated, for although the bridge was constructed far upstream in the Punjab region, the river is fed by snow and glacial meltwater from the Karakorum, the Hindu Kush, and the Himalaya Mountains, and its annual flow is known to be two times faster than that of the Nile or three times that of the Euphrates and the Tigris combined.

Even in antiquity, historians tend to focus solely on Alexander, but his generals also excelled in their missions, which were multiplied from Sogdiana and Bactria onwards. The War of the Diadochi that broke out after Alexander’s death certainly proves – if a proof is needed – how capable each and every one of his generals was. Well, they certainly had an excellent master!

[The Black&White picture is taken by John Burke, 1879-1880]