“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.

Alexander’s Oriental Afterlife

This is the title of one of the many intriguing chapters in Robbert Bosschart’s book “All Alexander’s Women”. Beyond the widespread descriptions of Alexander’s life in our Western literature, the author hunted for Eastern sources. There are two key figures to consider, Ferdowsi and Nizami (see: Timeline of Main Arabic/ Persian Sources writing about Alexander). 

Ferdowsi is a Persian poet from the 10^th century who is still very much revered in Iran today, famous for his Shah-Nama, one of the longest epic poems in the world. It tells the (partially mythical) history of the Persian Empire from its creation until the end of the Sassanid rule in the 7^th century. 

The other prominent figure is Nizami, known as the greatest romantic poet in Persian literature. He lived in the 12^th century and described Alexander as a philosopher king and sage. 

It is not surprising that the Persians looked at Alexander from a very different angle as highlighted by R. Bosschart. Here are a few such examples, excerpts from his book: 

The vast popularity attained by the Alexander Romance over the centuries means that thousands of local storytellers have entertained millions of listeners in countless places with a marvelous or terrifying Alexander, made to measure for the taste of the audience.

But their tales were based on a very limited number of source texts. That is, whatever version of the Life and Deeds they might have heard or read, plus some (snippets of) local literature. For example, the 170 fake Alexander letters that circulated in Egypt from Ptolemaic times; or, in Persia, one of the contradictory Alexanders described in Ferdowsi’s Shah-Nama.

By the time this oral folklore became fixed in writing (a process that took obscure propaganda hacks and famous poets quite some centuries), an astonishing variety of Alexanders were living a fascinating afterlife. Most of them, just as an entertaining or educational sample of literary fantasy; but at least in two cases, with a profound social-political significance.

I am referring to the way in which the storytellers of Egypt and Persia appeased the bad conscience of their patriotic audience over the fact that their nation, with its ages-old, proud civilization, had submitted so meekly or even zealously to that young barbarian Alexander. Their solution was simple: they converted him to a ‘hidden’ son of a respectively Egyptian or Persian monarch, so that he could be welcomed back in ‘his true homeland’ as a liberator with full birthright to the throne.

…

The marriage of the daughter of Persia’s previous king to Alexander is a historical fact. During their negotiations after his first defeat, Darius III tells Alexander he can marry «one of my daughters». Years later, Alexander moreover receives the public approval of queen-mother Sisygambis to marry her granddaughter, the princess Barsine/Stateira.

But in his literary afterlife, the bride always is another princess: the insignificant Roxane, in the multiple versions based on the pseudo-Kallisthenes; or the magnificent, ‘divine’ Buran-dokht in a Persian tradition. However, in all these fantasied romances without exception, the reason why he marries her is the plea of the routed king Darius, who, with his dying breath, asks him to do so.

Only in the Persian version, Darius/Darab adds another petition to his deathbed plea. In Ferdowsi’s Shah-Nama, the routed king whispers in Alexander’s ear: «…Ask for my daughter’s hand in marriage; look after my children, my family, and my veiled wise women».

Who or what these wise women would be —so important that the High King in his last words before his death desperately wants to make sure they will be respected by the future ruler—, Ferdowsi sees no need to explain: he is sure that the (Persian) audience will understand.

This signifies two things. One: that wise women in the age of the Achaemenid empire were highly considered, and their rights were deemed worthy of the maximum protection. And two: as this oral tradition has been created to justify, to the eyes of a Persian audience, events in Alexander’s deeds which they recognized but needed to get explained, it follows that they knew that Alexander had wise Persian women at his side, and respected women’s rights. After all, such national sagas like the Shah-Nama and the Darab-Nama were intended as a reminder so that the Persians would not forget their glorious past.

… we are presented with an Oriental legend. Or rather, an embroidered version of a historic fact known to every Persian in the Achaemenid empire — and to many Jews, who revered Cyrus the Great because he had freed them from slavery in Babylon and sent them home to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem.

The fact is that in 530 BC Cyrus went to war against queen Tomyris of the Massagetai — and lost.

…

Tomyris sends a herald to Cyrus with her message: «Stop this war effort, because you cannot know if in the end it will do you any good. Be content to rule in peace over your own kingdom, and let me reign in mine. But of course, you will refuse my advice».

Cyrus indeed refuses to listen to her wise words, attacks – and dies on the battlefield. Now, it is a well-known theme that Alexander always tries to (and succeeds in) surpassing the feats of Cyrus. So here the Jews —who maintained good relations with Alexander throughout his reign, acting as loyal subjects— award him another victory: Alexander comes out a winner where Cyrus failed.

This is the beginning of a literary tradition – later represented so brilliantly by Nizami’s Iqbal-Nama— that describes Alexander as a philosopher king, Seeker of Knowledge, a sage whose only real aim is to learn wisdom.

...

Persia’s historical memory, as explained by the saga “Darab-Nama”, also remembers Alexander’s decision to promote mass-marriages for the better integration of conquerors and conquered into one realm. This is how the story in this popular saga was told to audiences all over Persia: 

Alexander and his army happen upon an island of women, and thousands of these invade the camp «searching for men». Alexander first suspects that they may be hostile, but soon understands they only want to make love —and then fears that his own men will “go berserk”, causing even worse problems. So he allows his wise chancellor –whose name is given as Plato— to apply a miracle-working solution.

Alexander and his wise chancellor Plato receive queen Sabaterah.

She reigns over an island where only women live, who all want

sex with men. Plato will ensure that they become legal spouses.

(Miniature from a 1720 AD manuscript of the Darab-Nama)

[Graciously shared by Robbert Bosschart]

Plato calls upon the women and asks them: «By the will of God, and so be all the Angels your witnesses, will you give yourselves in legal union to the men that will enter your city?» They agree. The storyteller concludes: «When the women were trying to seduce the men, it was the work of the Devil; but as soon as they were conveniently and legally married, it became God’s work, and Alexander could no longer be held responsible for any problems arising of their arrival».

Clearly, this is a remembrance of the mass-marriages (in reality, the legalization of de facto marriages) that Alexander organised in parallel with his double wedding at Susa in 324 BC. Out of his own purse, as Arrian reports in VII, 4, 8, he paid dowries for the Persian and other Oriental women who had taken up with his officers and soldiers, so they could be legally married. The list totalled some 10,000 dowries, and the classical sources say that Alexander disbursed over 10,000 talents of silver for them; an amount equivalent to 150 million dollars of today. It is understandable that these marriages, converting thousands of concubines into legal wives, left an indelible memory among the Persians.

Just as important was Alexander’s pledge that he would care for their offspring. Arrian notes in passing that he promised his veterans that their children from Oriental partners “will be educated as Macedonians”. But Diodoros tells more: he registers (in his Book XVII, 110, 3) that Alexander has set up a specific fund and appointed the necessary teachers to ensure that the 10,000 children his men have had with “women who were taken in war” will be educated “as is the right of free men”.

In Book XVIII, Diodoros adds that Alexander had decided to apply his integration policy on a much broader scale: «…he intended to establish cities and to transplant populations from Asia to Europe and in the opposite direction from Europe to Asia, in order to bring the largest continents to common unity and to friendly kinship by means of intermarriages and family ties».

Alexander’s intermarriage policy found lasting approval in Persia, as shown by the positive comment in the Darab-Nama on the “miraculous solution” devised by Plato.

For over a thousand years, Persian audiences have been listening again and again to this story in theaters, bazaars, harems and taverns. They must have agreed: after all, no storyteller makes a living by irritating his public.

Persia's Historical Memory of Alexander

Robbert Bosschart has published an Updated Version 2025 to his book All Alexander’s Women, which deserves special attention.

Of particular interest is this newly reworked Chapter, Persia's Historical Memory of Alexander, where the author focuses on the Persian side of history. The Achaemenids did not have a counterpart for the Greek writers and chroniclers and relied instead on the verbal transmission of Alexander’s life and deeds by way of mouth by their storytellers.

This new information is too good to be kept hidden in the dust of time, and I am very happy to share hereafter the most important information together with some of the magnificent illustrations. 

Persia's Historical Memory of Alexander

For Persia’s own first-hand memories of Alexander perforce we have to rely on oral history: all the published testimonies available today originated from texts of local storytellers, later written down and ‘enriched’ by scribes, poets or translators.

...

Early Persian/Arab authors who included history themes in their writings, based their texts both on oral history accounts and on written documents. From Umara in the 7th century AD up to Masudí in the 10th century they used all sorts of sources, including the first Arabic translations of the pseudo-Kallisthenes’ Alexander Romance.

As times went by, the most popular versions of Alexander’s exploits became more and more sensational and sexy, big adventure tales usually known as the Iskandar-Nama, the Book of Alexander. As a result, their reports about Alexander’s reign are quite entertaining literature, but in historical accuracy ‘few and far between’.

Therefore it is interesting to find that the only text with specifically Persian memories of Alexander’s life and deeds is, again, that of a simple storyteller. Or not exactly ‘simple’, for Abu Taher al-Tarsusí describes himself as «a compiler of histories and narrator of mysterious facts». The saga that Tartusi published under the title of Darab-Nama (‘Tale of Darius’) was a written version of an ancient folk story. From the 12th century AD on it became very popular.

The oldest manuscript we have is dated to 1580 AD, in an edition illuminated with precious miniatures made in India for the Mughal emperor Akbar. Painstaking research on this and other, later versions finally yielded in 1965 the definitive edition of the Darab-Nama. In his introduction, Professor Zabiholla Safa underlined that the text is based on oral source material that is much older than the Arabic translations of the Alexander Romance. In other words, the Darab-Nama reflects Persia’s own historical memory. 

Its title is rather misleading, because only 386 of the 1159 known pages concern Persia’s glory years under the revered figures of Darius the Elder and his successor. But the bulk of the text, 773 pages long, displays an elaborate tale of how his fictional granddaughter, princess ‘Buran-dokht’, first opposes, but finally permits Alexander’s conquest of Persia. 

A unique characteristic of the Darab-Nama is that here, Alexander does not get the brilliant leading role. That privilege is reserved solely for the purely Persian personage Buran-dokht. As long as the story takes place in Persia, Alexander is even portrayed as a hotheaded, at times stupid or cowardly, and always vulnerable young man, with no special military talents. More than once, Buran-dokht has to come and save him. Only after the story has moved to foreign lands, Alexander is allowed to become a brilliant warrior and wise statesman.

The Iskandar-Nama became a popular (and often hilarious) 

adventure tale with lots of action and sex

Of course, like many other works of oral literature, the Darab-Nama has been compiled over the centuries by successive storytellers. This makes it even more impressive that in Tarsusí’s final version, the text still manages to retain Persia’s popular memory of three historical facts concerning Alexander. 

The most extensive of the three is the (re)appearance of a goddess from a legendary past, Anahita. Time and again she intervenes to promote and protect Alexander’s kingship. To begin with, as Nahid, Alexander’s secret mother, who succeeds in placing him on the throne of the Western empire called “Rum“. Then she pops up briefly as queen Aban-dokht, who becomes his lover, and presents him with the capital of Persia, Estakhr. Finally she shines forth on hundreds of pages as the divine Buran-dokht, who ends up marrying him and setting him on the throne of the empire. Which means that even in islamic Iran, popular folklore still remembered –from 1500 years back!– the goddess Anahita, her role as Giver of Kingship, and her blessing for Alexander.

The second historical fact reported about Alexander in the Darab-Nama refers to his double Persian marriage «according to core royal usage»; that is, the multiple political marriages practised by Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great in the 6th century BC. This is told as follows:

«Buran-dokht took Alexander by the hand, made him sit on the throne and saluted him as King of Iran. Then they sent messengers and letters from Estakhr to all the provinces to announce that Buran-Dokht and Alexander had married. 

The gates of the treasuries were opened, gold was distributed profusely, and with both of them installed on their thrones on equal footing, they had seven months of celebrations. In accordance with the core royal usage, Alexander was also given in marriage the daughter of King Shahush».

So here Alexander marries a daughter of king Darab and a daughter of a king called Shahush. History tells us that in Susa, in 324 BC, Alexander married princess Barsine/Stateira, daughter of Darius III, and the princess Parysatis, last daughter of a king we know as Artaxerxes III Ochus, but who was called ‘Vahush’ in Old Persian. So the «daughter of King Shahush» in the Darab-Nama evidently is the daughter of Shah Vahush, as Artaxerxes III was known to his court.

The Persian warrior-queen Buran-dokht repeatedly 

saves Alexander from his enemies. 

Here she defeats the Indian king Poros, when she grabs 

his war elephant by the trunk and overturns him.

(Miniature illustrating a Darab Nama manuscript of 1720 AD, 

now in the Statsbibliothek of Berlin)

The third popular memory of a historical fact embedded in this saga recounts Alexander’s decision to promote mass-marriages for the better integration of conquerors and conquered into one realm; a theme that takes up some 20 pages in the Darab-Nama. This is how the story goes:

Alexander and his army happen upon an island of women, and thousands of these invade the camp «searching for men». Alexander suspects that in reality they may be hostile, but soon understands they only want to make love —and then fears that his own men will “go berserk”, causing even worse problems. So he allows his wise chancellor –whose name is given as Plato— to apply a miracle-working solution.

Plato calls upon the women and asks them: «By the will of God, and so be all the Angels your witnesses, will you give yourselves in legal union to the men that will enter your city?» They agree. The storyteller concludes: «When the women were trying to seduce the men, it was the work of the Devil; but as soon as they were conveniently and legally married, it became God’s work, and Alexander could no longer be held responsible for any problems arising of their arrival».

Clearly, this is a remembrance of the mass-marriages (in reality, the legalization of de facto marriages) that Alexander organised in parallel with his double wedding at Susa in 324 BC. Out of his own purse, as Arrian reports in VII, 4, 8, he paid dowries for the Persian and other Oriental women who had taken up with his officers and soldiers, so they could be legally married.

The list totalled some 10,000 dowries, and the classical sources say that Alexander disbursed over 10,000 talents of silver for them; an amount equivalent to 150 million dollars of today. It is understandable that these marriages, converting thousands of concubines into legal wives, left an indelible memory among the Persians. 

Just as important was Alexander’s pledge that he would care for their offspring. Arrian notes in passing that he promised his veterans that their children from Oriental partners “will be educated as Makedonians”. But Diodoros tells more: he registers (in his Book XVII, 110, 3) that Alexander has set up a specific fund and appointed the necessary teachers to ensure that the 10,000 children his men have had with “women who were taken in war” will be educated “as is the right of free men”.

Alexander and his wise chancellor Plato receive Queen Sabaterah, 

who reigns over an island where only women live, 

and they all want sex with men. 

Plato will ensure that they become legal spouses.

(Miniature from the 1720 AD manuscript of the Darab-Nama)

In Book XVIII, Diodoros adds that Alexander had decided to apply his integration policy on a much broader scale:

«…he intended to establish cities and to transplant populations from Asia to Europe and in the opposite direction from Europe to Asia, in order to bring the largest continents to common unity and to friendly kinship by means of intermarriages and family ties».

Alexander’s intermarriage policy found lasting approval in Persia, as shown by the positive comment of the storyteller in the Darab-Nama on the “miraculous solution” devised by Plato. In fact, all three of Tarsusí’s historical storylines, repeated again and again in the saga, must have met with notable approval of his Persian audience. After all, no storyteller makes a living by irritating his public.

Around the year 1000 AD, the prominent court poet Farrukhi Sistaní affirmed: “The story of Alexander’s exploits and his travels has found listeners everywhere, and everybody knows those tales by heart”. So Tarsusí and the storytellers before him had to take into account that among their public, there always would be people who remembered some previous version of the Alexander Romance.

As a case in point, their public in Ghazna could perfectly well remember an Eskandar-Nama compiled around 1015 AD out of stock tales of Persian storytellers that simply copied episodes from the pseudo-Kallisthenes Romance, with some fancy (and errors) added. In that text, Alexander is the undisputed hero of the saga. But to entertain the audience, this Eskandar-nama turns him into a comical figure who not only conquers kingdoms, but also women galore. He seduces princesses, amazons, warrior beauties, servant girls, widow queens, noble dames and even fairy queens (!) far and wide. With the result that this Alexander suffers all the problems of a bumbling man with too many wives and/or concubines.

When Alexander is listening to the deathbed pleas of king Darab, who begs him to treat his family well, Roxana makes her appearance in this Eskandar-Nama. “She is still young, you could marry her,” suggests Darab. (Here, Roxana is said to be not a daughter, but one of the wives of the Persian king.) Alexander answers hastily that this is a petition he will not agree to:

“God forbid that I should desire your wife, for I already have four wives, all free women, plus 40 concubines from here and from Greece.”

Roxana is an unavoidable heroine in all the Oriental translations of Romance episodes. So she also has to appear in the Darab-Nama. Well, more or less. When introducing his top star the princess Buran-dokht, Tarsusí takes the precaution of telling his public that «elsewhere she was also called Roshanak».

In other words, despite the fact that the following 773 pages prove without a shadow of doubt that his majestic Buran-dokht has nothing in common with the insignificant Roxana, Tarsusí still thought it wise to bow –if only once– to the Alexander Romance.

For my comments on Robbert Bosschart’s Third Edition, please refer to my earlier blog post: All Alexander's Women.

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]