The Virtues of War by Steven Pressfield

The Virtues of War (ISBN 9780553382051) by Steven Pressfield is quite an unorthodox book. As opposed to so many history or fiction books, including novels, about Alexander, this one lets Alexander speak for himself – a very challenging enterprise.

Steven Pressfield, whom I learned to appreciate in his novel The Afghan Campaign, clearly warns his readers in the introductory note that he does not follow history according to the strict reports but has arranged the events and facts to better suit his own interpretation, i.e., the true spirit of Alexander as he conceives it.

In this novel, Alexander is talking to Itanes, the younger brother of Roxane, who has joined his ranks to be taken into his close circle of Companions.

It is not a sentimental tale but a story told from the point of view of a general, a military leader who knows his men inside out. Alexander’s strategies and awareness of what happens around him in battle, without seeing how events unfold outside his narrow perimeter, are almost palpable. Far from being a monotonous monologue, Alexander shares not only his battle memories in facts and figures but also relates other key moments, of which there were many. He talks about his soldiers’ experiencing life in Babylon, the conspiracy of Philotas and the subsequent execution of his father Parmenion, the need to reshape his army facing guerrilla war in Bactria, and how by the time he reaches India, more than half of his Macedonian troops have been replaced by foreign entities. The character of Alexander that transpires is that of a king in all its complexity but also that of a man who realizes he is not perfect and often falls short. Besides, he is very well aware that the attitude and mindset of people in the East are very different from that in Greece and that he inevitably has to adapt – something his marshals cannot comprehend.

Hephaistion is well portrayed, always appearing at Alexander’s side. Historians generally tone down his presence simply because ancient writers have ignored him for whatever reason (perhaps his story was not juicy enough?). The description of the other commanders like Parmenion, Craterus, Black Cleitus, Ptolemy, Peucestas, Seleucos, Philotas, and dozens of others is very recognizable.

King Philip II of Macedonia remains Alexander’s great role model throughout the story as young Alexander kept his eyes open and clearly understood his father’s policy and tactics. The influence of Olympias, which is often impressed on the character of Alexander, is absent. This is a man’s world.

As in The Afghan Campaign, I marvel at Steven Pressfield’s knowledge of the military and the mindset of the troops in the field and on the march. Looking him up on Wikipedia, I read that his book Gates of Fire (which I have not read yet) is being taught at West Point, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the Marine Corps Basic School at Quantico. He is a man to my heart, knowing that Alexander’s Battle of Gaugamela is still teaching material at West Point!

I honestly don’t understand why this book is being underrated. This is not just another history of Alexander the Great but a very worthwhile attempt to crawl inside his mind and under his skin. Steven Pressfield made a superb effort to understand how the mind of a great man works. Since Alexander falls within the category of the geniuses, who among us dares criticize when the author lets a genius speak?

Alexander and Hephaistion side by side

Finding these two great men side by side at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens is absolutely thrilling.

I often wonder why there are so few images of Hephaistion, but one should consider that none of the men in Alexander's entourage were ever depicted while the king was still alive. We do have pictures – mainly coins – showing the members of his bodyguards (somatophylakes), but only when they became king in their own realm after Alexander's death, simply because it was a king's privilege to be portrayed.

The most obvious example is, beyond doubt, Ptolemy, who started ruling over Egypt immediately after Alexander's death. Lysimachos had to wait a little longer in the ensuing battle of the Diadochi to be recognized as king of Thrace and represented as such on his coinage. The same applies obviously to Seleucos and Antigonus Monophthalmus. Yet none of the king's Bodyguards, like Aristonous, Peithon, Leonnatus, Peucestas, or even Perdiccas, have ever been carved in stone. Hence, we don't know what they looked like.

This being said, I should not be ungrateful for the few images we have of Hephaistion, i.e., the head (probably reworked in antiquity) now at the Getty Museum in Malibu, California, and the smaller-than-life-size marble statue at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, where he is standing next to Alexander.

Alexander looks rather shabby, but in my eyes, Hephaistion is exactly how he is supposed to be. However, I struggle with the label at the museum, which states, "Marble statue of Hephaistion. Possibly a group erected in Alexandria honoring Hephaistion, 1st century BC". Why would Alexander show up next to an honorific statue of Hephaistion? And how come Alexandria is (still) honoring Hephaistion in the first century BC when the Ptolemaic dynasty is reaching its end with the famous Queen Cleopatra fighting for Egypt's survival? When Hephaistion died in 324 BC, Alexander would have loved to see him deified by the Egyptian priests, who tactfully promoted him to hero instead. So, a cult in honor of Hephaistion is not surprising, but I find the time frame and this kind of association with Alexander rather disturbing.

When I wrote my "Ode to Alexander and Hephaistion," I forgot to mention this group of statues. Shame on me! But then I also omitted to mention both men's portraits on the famous Alexander Sarcophagus from Sidon, now at the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul.

This sarcophagus, in fact, deserves a closer look, of course. First, it does not belong to Alexander the Great but was probably made for King Abdalonymus of Sidon, who was put on the throne by Alexander (with the help of Hephaistion) after conquering the city in 332 BC. It has been dated between 325 and 311 BC and was discovered in 1887 at the Royal Necropolis of Sidon, i.e., when Phoenicia was still part of the Ottoman Empire.

One of the long sides of the sarcophagus definitely shows Alexander fighting a Persian, probably King Darius (but this is not certain), at the Battle of Issus that occurred only a few months earlier, and where the Persians were defeated by the Greeks. The other long side represents two hunting scenes, those of a lion and a deer, in which both Greeks and Persians participated. The sarcophagus's short sides show a panther hunt and a battle scene.

Alexander is the only figure identified with certainty since he wears Heracles' headdress and the Amon ram's horn. Hephaistion is probably depicted in the hunting scene where he attacks a lion together with a Persian. Most unfortunately, the other personages cannot be tied to a name, although Perdiccas and Abdalonymus have been suggested. It is a great historical document that sadly has yet to be entirely deciphered.

Although these high reliefs appear very Greek, the craftsmen were masters in the Eastern art of decoration. This is based on the use of eagles in the upper row of the acroteria, who carried the souls of the dead to heaven according to ancient Syrian beliefs. The heads of women added at the bottom refer to the worship of the mother goddess, as known from prehistoric times in Mesopotamia. The acroteria above the pediments on the sides represent Persian griffons. Also, a lion is lying on each corner of the sarcophagus, symbolizing protection. These meager beasts look more like dogs and seem to be of Ionian origin.

The attentive eye will notice subtle traces of paint all over this marble sarcophagus. Colors range from purple, blue, and red to violet and yellow, and it is thought that the figures themselves were slightly varnished. Thanks to the intensive work carried out by Vinzenz Brinkman over the past 25 years (see: Ancient Greece in full Technicolor), we can now have a very vivid image of what this sarcophagus must have looked like at the time of its completion.

This being said, we owe a great deal to the owner of this masterpiece. King Abdalonymus is displaying immense gratitude towards both Alexander and Hephaistion since he would never have ruled over his city without them. When the people of Sidon heard of Alexander's victory over Darius at Issus, they decided to depose their ruling king, Straton II, a friend of Darius, and open the city gates to Alexander, whose task was to appoint a new king. He instructed Hephaistion to find the appropriate candidate. He discovered this distant relative of the dynasty of Sidon, living in the countryside. Abdalonymus, whose name means "servant of the gods" in Persian, clearly took his task seriously. What an honorable tribute he paid here to both Alexander and Hephaistion!

[Picture from Wikipedia]

What became of Alexander’s closest commanders after the War of the Diadochi?

Alexander was surrounded and supported by his highly skilled and efficient Bodyguards or Companions, who, after his death in 323 BC, had to take charge and rule his vast empire. They definitely were not prepared for this task, as Alexander obviously had not expected to die at such a young age.

The ensuing war that lasted for almost forty years and went into history as the War of the Diadochi was inevitable. Time and again, the commanders took sides and changed sides, made peace treaties, but coveted each other’s possessions soon after. Their lust for power and innate Greek competitiveness led them, at the head of their seasoned armies, to conquer ever more land. In the process, they eliminated each other systematically, till around 280 BC only four dynasties remained: the Ptolemies in Egypt, the Seleucids in Asia, the Lysimachids in Thrace, and the Antipatrids in Macedonia.

At the time of Alexander’s death, all his Bodyguards were in Babylon: Aristonous, Leonnatus, Lysimachos, Peithon, Perdiccas, Peucestas, and Ptolemy. Other powerful men were also present, like Seleucos, one of his principal commanders over the past seven years; Nearchus, his fleet admiral; and Eumenes, his secretary and archivist. However, Craterus was still in Cilicia on his way to Macedonia, and Antipater, as the Regent, was in Pella. Sooner or later, all these leaders got involved in the Succession War and died while defending their rights or in their increasing ambition to expand their territory.

"Diadochen1" by Captain_Blood - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons 

Here is what became of them:

The first to die was Leonnatus, who relieved Antipater during the siege of Lamia in 322 BC and was killed by the Athenian enemy.

The next victim was Craterus in 321 BC, as his horse stumbled during a fierce confrontation with Eumenes on the borders of Cappadocia. He was trampled to death.

Perdiccas followed in 320 BC after failing to lead his troops safely across the Nile when he invaded Egypt held by Ptolemy. He was killed by his own officers.

Antipater died of old age in the late summer of 319 BC, nominating Polyperchon as his successor instead of his own son, Cassander.

Later that year (319 BC), the generals Arrhidaeus, Nicanor, and Cleitus were eliminated.

Eumenes, after desperate and repeated attempts to win the confidence of his troops, was killed by Antigonus Monophthalmus, the rising star in 317 BC. At the same time, Antigenes was burnt alive by Antigonus.

Under false pretexts, Peithon was summoned to Ecbatana by Antigonus some time later, where he was accused of treachery and executed.

Aristonous became the general of Olympias in her war against Cassander, but when the queen was taken prisoner in 316 BC, he was put to death by Cassander.

Nearchus disappeared from history around 300 BC, after he had joined Antigonus Monophthalmus and acted as adviser to his son, Demetrios Poliorcetes.

Lysimachus had the difficult task of ruling Thrace, which served as a buffer zone between east and west. He was killed in 281 BC after crossing the Hellespont into Lydia.

Peucestas had a less glamorous end to his career. He surrendered to Antigonus after acting as an unwilling ally of Eumenes and was kept as Antigonus’ close advisor and afterward for his son Demetrios Poliorcetes. The last time we heard from him was in 290 BC.

Ptolemy made a better choice with Egypt, which he ruled successfully, starting a dynasty that lasted three hundred years. Ptolemy I Soter died in his mid-eighties in 283 BC.

The same applies to Seleucos, who, after many fights on different sides, gained protection from Ptolemy and managed to establish himself as ruler of Alexander’s eastern provinces (311-302 BC). In his ambition to conquer Macedonia and Thrace as well, he was assassinated in 281 BC by Ptolemy Keraunos, son of Ptolemy I. He was the last of the great men who once rode by Alexander’s side to the end of the world.

Dividing the Spoils. The War for Alexander’s Empire by Robin Waterfield

Dividing the Spoils (ISBN 978-0-19-964700-2): at last, a book where I’m not getting lost amidst the many successors and endless wars!

When Alexander died in 323 BC, there was no heir to the throne, and he had not appointed any of his generals to rule his empire. This situation only led to chaos, and the chaos turned into war since all the commanders in Babylon felt they were equally qualified and entitled to take charge. Until now, I had always swept these fights into one big heap labeled “the War of the Diadochi” or “War of the Successors.” The author clearly underscores that the world fought a full-blooded civil war in which Macedonians fought against Macedonians. At the same time, it was a world war, considering that Alexander had conquered nearly all of the known world. These succession wars lasted forty years until Alexander’s empire was finally shared by four remaining contenders: Ptolemy in Egypt, Seleucos in Asia, Lysimachus in Thrace, and Cassander in Greece.

But blessed be Robin Waterfield, who has managed to relate the succession wars as seen through the eyes of each individual general, projecting the events against the wars and ambitions of the other players in this game for power. Thanks to the clear layout and additional sub-chapters, it is pretty amazing to realize that you can keep track of all those intricate events where sides were taken and exchanged, where treaties were signed and discarded, and where territories were won and lost again. Sons succeeded their fathers, daughters were given in marriage to secure a temporary agreement, and wives were negotiated for their titles or influence.

When you consider the crowd of powerful men gathered in Babylon to discuss Alexander’s succession, it is no wonder that we are so easily losing track. We have all Alexander’s Bodyguard members: Aristonous, Leonnatus, Lysimachus, Peithon, Perdiccas, Peucestas, and Ptolemy. Also present were Seleucos, one of his principal commanders over the past seven years; Nearchus, the admiral of his fleet; and Eumenes, his secretary and archivist. Missing were Craterus (still in Cilicia, bringing the veterans home to Macedonia) and Antipater, the Regent of Macedonia. These men and more battled among themselves. Quite a crowd, and yet Robin Waterfield manages to follow the reasoning and campaigning of each of them. He even finds opportune moments to share information about the rise of Hellenism and its consequences in politics, religion, philosophy, warfare, and art.

This makes for thrilling and captivating reading material as the author keeps his audience’s attention alive all the way to the end.

Also available as an ebook, click here.

What if...

“What if” is one of those questions that keeps popping up in everybody’s mind, and as I often wonder about Alexander’s life and death, I came up with several “what ifs”:

• What if … he had married before leaving for Asia and had produced a son?
• What if … Hephaistion had still been alive at the time of Alexander’s death in Babylon?
• What if … he had died a few months earlier before Craterus left with his veterans for Macedonia? 
• What if … he had died a few months later after his son with Roxane was born and Craterus had replaced Antipater in Macedonia?
• What if … he had lived a few more years to conquer western Mediterranean?
• What if … he had left his throne to his son from the Persian princess Barsine/Stateira, descended from and protected by Sisygambis?

Pure speculation, of course, but I think it could be interesting to spend some time reflecting on these theories.

First, all members of Alexander’s Bodyguard were in Babylon when he died in 323 BC: Aristonous, Leonnatus, Lysimachus, Peithon, Perdiccas, Peucestas, and Ptolemy. Other powerful men were also present, like Seleucos, one of his principal commanders over the past seven years; Nearchus, the admiral of his fleet; and Eumenes, his secretary and archivist. They all had campaigned at Alexander’s side for over a decade, and I’m confident their world vision had changed considerably since they left Macedonia. As we know, however, the main absentees were Craterus, who was still in Cilicia on his way to replace Antipater as Regent in Macedonia upon Alexander’s instructions, and Antipater himself.

Alexander had not appointed a successor. His wife, Queen Roxane, was expecting a child in a few months, but there was no guarantee this would be a boy. Alexander already had a son, Heracles, by his mistress Barsine, but no attempt was ever made to recognize him, and thus the boy had no right to the throne. The only “available” royal was Alexander’s half-brother, Arrhidaeus, an adult but simple-minded and not fit to rule by himself.

In short, the empty throne had to be occupied, and the vast empire had to be ruled. It was up to this group of faithful men to make the right decisions, although none knew what they were. Alexander had been their king and leader; how could that position be filled or replaced?

The army, according to Macedonian law, could nominate their new king, but most importantly, they were the ones who had to approve the possible candidate; without their blessing, no king could rule. Yet the army was split into three large contingents: approximately 10,000 to 15,000  troops were still in Babylon, 10,000 veterans led by Craterus were in Cilicia, and about the same number of troops were in Greece under the command of Antipater.

This was the situation in June 323 BC when Alexander’s commanders met in the afflicted Royal Palace of Babylon. The assembled generals were all powerful figures and capable leaders. What was going to complicate things was their sense of competition. For the Greeks, competition was part of their nature; it was in their blood and present in every level of daily life, exposing soldier against soldier or, more appropriately, in this case, general against general. Alexander grew up with the very notion of competition, and he unceasingly instigated it in his army by organizing combats among his men or holding theater festivals in which contestants vied for attention. At the Babylon Conference, this meant that none of the generals present was initially ready to make any concession to the other. A tricky situation, to say the least.

What if Alexander had left the throne to his son from the Persian princess Stateira, descended from and protected by Sisygambis?

Actually, this is a thought that was formulated by Robbert Bosschart in his book “All Alexander’s Women” – the most dazzling theory of them all! What if Alexander had died some twenty years later - after all, a king remaining alive until the age of 53 was quite normal then - and had left the empire to his son from the Persian princess Stateira, granddaughter of Queen Mother Sisygambis?

There would have been sufficient time for Alexander to consolidate his empire. Of course, no one could have filled the heartfelt void that Hephaistion left behind, but Peucestas would have become a highly efficient Chiliarch (Prime Minister) by then – after all, he managed to learn the Persian language. With general Craterus as Regent or even Vice-Roy in the West, general Seleucos as Vice-Roy in the East (we know that in the end, he became the founder of the Seleucid dynasty that ruled the East for nearly three hundred years), general Ptolemy at the head of Central Command, and Cassander safely executed for yet another attempt on Alexander's life, the empire would be perfectly stable for a twenty-years-old Crown Prince (called Cyrus, probably) to rule

Following the thoughts of Robbert Bosschart, this powerful dynasty born from Stateira that Alexander and Sisygambis wanted to leave behind would have predated, pre-empted, and outpaced the Roman state by three centuries. Their “Kingdom of all Lands,” and not the Roman Empire, would have become the basic model of our Western society, including feminine values. Alexander’s legacy would also have given us a different way of thinking about the role of men and women in public life (one of the most revealing facts in “All Alexander’s Women” is that in Persia, men and women lived and worked on a level of equality). This, above all, would have changed world history.

But still, Alexander could not have ignored his son by Roxane, Alexander IV, who would have been of the same age as the presumed Cyrus. He would complicate the abovementioned theory. It is evident that Stateira was of a higher royal rank than Roxane, the daughter of a leading Bactrian tribe. The same order of precedence would apply to their respective offspring, and Alexander the Great would have arranged a satisfactory career for Alexander IV as well, depending on his character and his inclinations. He may have grown up at the Persian court where his father and the Queen Mother could have provided for a proper education, or he may have grown up at the Macedonian court under the guidance of Queen Olympias and/or Craterus, or maybe a mixture of both since Alexander’s vision was to unite east and west and melt his empire into one (simply think of the mass-wedding in Susa). Remains the open question of how well young Cyrus and young Alexander would get along together …

The Persian viewpoint is, in many ways, turning our perspectives topsy-turvy, as Alexander’s succession always has been presented as a Macedonian affair. If the Queen Mother or any high Persian official ever had a voice in the crowd of Macedonian officers is not mentioned in ancient sources. Still, these were evidently written by Greeks, and no effort has been made (even by modern authors) to investigate that side of history. There must have been Persian records of the events, but if they have survived is another matter, and even if they do exist, they most probably have not been translated or are still lingering in some obscure museum storage.

Bringing Stateira and her son into play, as Robbert Bosschart has done, would definitely influence my above speculations, especially in the case of Hephaistion surviving Alexander. True to Alexander’s thoughts and wishes, he would have raised young Cyrus as a crown prince and would have treated Sisygambis and Olympias with the appropriate deference to put their stamp on the education of both Alexander’s sons.

All theories are certainly worth pondering, for they are all fascinating and frightening at the same time, especially since each theory automatically raises ever more questions. Yes, what if …?  Only Zeus knows what would have happened and what our modern world would have looked like.

[Picture of Stateira in Babylon is from Oliver Stone's movie "Alexander"]