The Attalids, rulers of Pergamon

The Attalid Dynasty of Pergamon started with Philetairos in 282 BC, roughly fifty years after the death of Alexander. 

It remains difficult to imagine the wealth Alexander had accumulated from his conquest of Asia.  The rise of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties can hardly be compared to that of Lysimachos, who did not draw the best cards. The War of the Diadochi was a very intricate and complex bickering and conniving from which all parties did not profit equally. However, Lysimachos put his share of the booty to good use and his trusted treasury keeper, Philetairos, did the same giving Pergamon the jump start it needed.

The starting date of the Pergamon Dynasty is much later than for the empires of  Seleucos in 312 BC, and Ptolemy in 305 BC founded at the end of the War of the Diadochy. 

Philetairos was a eunuch who had served under Antigonus Monophtalmos. In 302 BC he deserted him to join Lysimachos, the king of Northwest Asia Minor. At the death of Antigonus, Lysimachos rewarded Philetairos for his loyalty by putting him in charge of his treasury (inherited from Alexander) in Pergamon. 

But when Lysimachos, upon the instigation of his wife, murdered his only son, Agathocles, Philetairos joined Seleucos I. Soon afterwards, Seleucos’ forces murdered Lysimachos leaving Philetairos to rule Pergamon until 263 BC. Seleucos granted him great autonomy, which enabled him to expand his territory. Unable to have children of his own, Philetairos had adopted his nephew, the future Eumenes I, who would succeed him in 263 BC. 

One year into his kingship, Eumenes defeated the Seleucid King Antiochus near Sardes, which enabled him to create an independent city-state of Pergamon. Eumenes did not have children either and the throne went to his nephew and cousin, Attalus, who went down into history as Attalus I Soter. Attalus ruled from 241 to 197 BC and many historians still consider him as the founder of the Attalid Dynasty, with Pergamon as its capital. 

The reign of Attalus I was all but peaceful. The Seleucids had lost power over Lysimachos' territories of Pergamon, Bithynia, Nicomedia, and Cappadocia, which gained their independence. Attalus expanded his territory but lost much of it to Seleucos II later on. However, he managed to save Pergamon from the attacks of the Galatians on his northern border and to establish friendly relations with the Romans. That’s how he got involved in the Second Macedonian War (200-197 BC), which opposed the weakening kingdom of Macedonia to Rome, as an ally of Pergamon. Attalus suffered a stroke during peace negotiations in Thebes and was brought back to Pergamon, where he died in 197 BC. 

Eumenes II took over where his father left off but mingling in the affairs of the Seleucids in Syria did not sit well with the Senate of Rome. No reason for Eumenes to be distracted from carrying out his own large expansion program in Pergamon, where he built the unique Great Altar and the massive Library, second only to that of Alexandria. The Romans resented the power and independence Eumenes displayed, which in their eyes reduced their own sphere of influence in Asia Minor. Sadly, although still in his early sixties, Eumenes’ health began to deteriorate, and he appointed his brother Attalus II as a co-ruler. One year later, in 159 BC, Eumenes died. His own son was still an infant, and consequently, Attalus II, who conveniently married his widow, became the new king. He also adopted his brother’s young son, who was to become the future Attalus III. 

Attalus II continued Eumenes’ building projects in Pergamon, this time including the Palace. He also funded the construction of a new temple to Hera Basileia between the lower Agora and the Gymnasium. 

He was familiar with the political situation he inherited. He had no real enemies and was careful to recognize the authority of Rome. Instead of going to war, Attalus II expanded his influence by spending lavish amounts of money on prestige projects. For instance, he contributed to the construction of a splendid Stoa in the Agora of Athens, at the foot of the Acropolis. This is the Stoa of Attalus II, which was restored/ reconstructed by the American School of Classical Studies in the early 1950s. Another Stoa carrying his name was built in Termessos next to the Corinthian temple.

As always, all kinds of taxes were raised to pay for these grand expenses, but Attalus equally improved trade in his kingdom, building markets and safe harbors. He certainly needed reliable access to a harbor, and Attalus attempted to subdue Side. In the wake of this failed attempt, he added part of Pamphylia to his kingdom, where he founded an entirely new port. He named it Attaleia, after himself, i.e., modern Antalya. Attalus II died at the blessed age of 81 or 82 in 138 BC. 

His successor was his nephew and adopted son, Attalus III. However, the new king was not interested in his kingship or in Pergamon. No wonder that he was rather unpopular among his citizens. When he died five years later of disease, he bequeathed Pergamon to Rome, which made it the capital of their Provincia Asia.

Although there may have been one last pretender to the throne, a supposed illegitimate son of Eumenes II, the Attalid Dynasty came to an abrupt end in 133 BC. 

In hardly 150 years, the Attalids had built one of the greatest Hellenistic centers for culture and art, mainly under the reigns of Eumenes II and Attalus II, which still intrigues us.

The end of Pergamon was all but glorious. After being hit by a severe earthquake in 262 AD, its decline was set in motion. The Muslims sacked what remained standing during their raid of 663 AD. More setbacks followed after the conquests by the Byzantine Empire and around 1300 AD by the Ottoman Empire. Slowly, the majestic site deteriorated to the point it was abandoned and forgotten until the first explorers of the 18^th and 19^th centuries rediscovered Pergamon.

Does age matter?

Writing about Alexander over the years, I have been handling chronological dates for his whereabouts in the correct time frame. There is, however, another approach to consider and that is Alexander’s age. 

We know he became king at the age of twenty and started his invasion of Asia at the age of twenty-two. He died a month short of his 33^rd birthday. All his marches, sieges, battles, and fighting are condensed within this last period of roughly ten years. 

A comparison with any modern monarchy is impossible because there are hardly any kings left and they no longer go to war at the head of their army. To compare Alexander with young men his age today is out of the question also simply because life and the circumstances of living are too far apart. 

Alexander has been taught by Aristotle but again this kind of education cannot be identified with the teaching of a young man in our modern world. I believe that even Philip, although he intended to do what was best for his son, underestimated the vastness of Aristotle’s knowledge. Alexander was meant to rise above Philip because he understood how to draw from Aristotle’s vast database (to use modern terminology) and merge it expertly with his innate infallible instinct - his genius. 

However, Philip may well have realized the potential of his 16-year-old son when he entrusted him with the seal of Macedonia while campaigning against Byzantium. The young prince honored his assignment as Regent by successfully putting down the Maedi revolt on the country’s northern border. 

Two years later, Philip put his son in command of his cavalry at the Battle of Chaironeia. Alexander did more than his share and annihilated the entire Theban Band, all three hundred of them! 

We don’t know how much time the young prince spent among the soldiers growing up in Pella, but I think it is safe to assume it was a lot. Leading the small contingent against the Maedi and the cavalry in Chaironeia speaks volumes. An army has that instinctive flair to recognize a true leader, one they can and will trust. 

This trust would only grow when Alexander became king after his father was murdered. In the next two years, he successfully led his troops against the Illyrians and the Thracians to secure his northern borders, sacked the city of Thebes in retribution for its betrayal, and confirmed his position as Hegemon of Greece as per the Treaty of Corinth. Alexander could never have contemplated his campaign in Asia without the full trust and commitment of his army. 

He crossed the Hellespont shortly before his 22^nd birthday and fought the Persian army for the first time at the Granicus River. Later that summer, he marched to Sardes and took Ephesos, Priene, Miletus, Didyma, and Halicarnassus. Alexander spent the following winter in Lycia, after which he conquered Phaselis and Perge. 

When he was 23 years old, he headed north to Sagalassos and from there to Gordion, where he cut the knot. Crossing Cappadocia, he returned to the shores of the Mediterranean. At Tarsus, he fell sick with a fever, which incapacitated him for several weeks. By the end of the year, he was engaged in the Battle of Issus, his first personal confrontation with King Darius. 

In two years, Alexander fought two major battles (see: The Battle of the Granicus and The Battle of Issus, where Alexander and Darius faced each other for the first time), besieged two cities, Miletus and Halicarnassus, and occupied all the major ports in Asia Minor. In our modern world, this means that he crossed all of Turkey. 

At the age of 24, he laid siege to two more cities, Tyre (building a mole in the process) and Gaza. His reception in Egypt was that of a liberator, and he was soon acclaimed as their new Pharaoh - a title that automatically made him a god in the eyes of the Egyptians. At the western end of the Nile Delta, he founded his first Alexandria, a city that still exists and prospers today! 

Many more sieges and battles were to follow in Central Asia and India. We almost take them for granted, despite that every siege and every battle came with its own technicalities and challenges. Alexander faced many hardships as he traveled through deserts, waded through countless rivers, and crossed mountains as high as those of the Hindu Kush! 

The three years Alexander spent in Sogdiana and Bactria, from his 27^th to his 30^th birthday, were an uninterrupted succession of skirmishes and fights in guerrilla wars he was totally unfamiliar with. The events culminated with his victory at the Battle of the Hydaspes against the Indian King Porus. By then, he and his men had covered some 28,000 kilometers, creating many new Alexandrias in the process. 

Although Alexander is usually depicted sitting on his horse, we have to keep in mind that he moved at the pace of his foot soldiers. Riding bareback was not comfortable, not for the rider and not for the horse (see: No saddles and no stirrups for Alexander’s cavalry). 

It is impossible to imagine anyone covering such a distance on foot. It would imply walking an average of 2,800 kilometers a year, ten years in a row! Let us keep in mind that many of his troops were veterans of his father’s days, men in their fifties, sixties, and even seventies! Not a leisurely trip for the fainthearted. 

Speaking of walking: how many pairs of shoes, boots, and sandals would the Macedonians have worn out? Providing new ones for some 40,000 men or more would have implied production on an industrial scale! Maybe we should believe the sources suggesting that the soldiers fought and walked sections of the route barefoot?

Sadly, Alexander died far too young, and so did Hephaistion, but men like Ptolemy and Seleucos lived to the ages of 84 and 77, respectively. Age clearly is not everything!

High stakes at Corinth

When Philip was proclaimed leader of all the Greeks at Corinth, he was clever enough to insert a clause in the treaty-making his title hereditary. Each state had individually sworn not to harm any other member of the Common Peace and not to interfere in their internal affairs. They also had sworn not to become allies with any foreign power that could damage any member of the Treaty. No member could undertake any operation that might endanger the peace or overthrow its constitution. The then assembled council or synedrion at Corinth was the final authority to settle any dispute between individuals or between member states. They had to help each other if one of the members was attacked but were not allowed to accept support from foreign powers.

This means that after the assassination of Philip in 336 BC, it was one of Alexander’s priorities to be accepted and confirmed as Hegemon of this League of Corinth.

Walking around the impressive remains of Corinth, crowned by the Temple of Apollo, which Alexander saw in all its glory, makes you wonder where these meetings took place. The most obvious location would be the theatre rebuilt early 4^th century BC on the foundations of an older one from the 5^th century BC. This theater could seat around 15,000 spectators, but there is very little left of this building. There is also a Bouleuterion behind the Agora to consider, but this turns out to be a Roman construction that didn’t exist in Philip’s days.

The Lechaion Street, which connected the center of Corinth to the western harbor of the same name, is one of the highlights of the city. In recent years, expert divers have been exploring the very harbor of Lechaion to expose the infrastructure of this important port city, locating two monumental piers built of ashlar blocks next to a smaller dock. They also found a canal entrance leading into Lechaion’s three inner harbors, as well as a breakwater.

Lechaion was only one of Corinth’s harbors, as the city strategically straddles the isthmus between mainland Greece and the Peloponnesus (less than 6 kilometers wide), which means that it needed both an eastern and a western harbor. Lechaion, on the Gulf of Corinth, served the western sea routes to Italy, Sicily, and beyond to Spain. The harbor of Kenchreai gave access to the Saronic Gulf from where the ships sailed to and from the Aegean, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Syria, and Egypt. Goods could be transported overland from one port to the other as lightweight ships were hauled using a platform along the road connecting Lechaion to Kenchreai. This was before Nero planned to dig a canal meant to link both sides, a plan that eventually materialized two thousand years later. The remains of Kenchreai Street are not as impressive as Lechaion Street, which is tucked away behind the shops of the Agora, but both were familiar to Alexander.

The Temple of Apollo certainly is the main landmark. It is built in Doric order, counting 6x15 columns, seven of which are still standing and define the skyline of Corinth. Rather unique is the fact that the columns are monolithic and stand more than seven meters tall. It is here that the slight convex floor to support the temple’s columns has been implemented for the first time, antedating the much-praised concept for the Parthenon in Athens! There is no trace of the bronze statue of Apollo that once stood inside the temple, as mentioned by Pausanias.

Another unmistakable feature in Corinth is the Fountain of Peirene, built in the late 6^th century BC and enhanced many times, especially by the Romans in the 2^nd century AD. Much older, and probably built together with the Temple of Apollo, is the adjacent Fountain of Glauke, an inelegant cube of about 7.5 meters. Inside is a succession of reservoirs with a total capacity of approximately 527 m3. Water management in antiquity was far more sophisticated than generally admitted.

Since its early beginning, Corinth was a booming trading hub in the eastern Mediterranean and has a lot to tell. For more than one thousand years, roughly from the 6^th century BC till the 6^th century AD, the city was at the center of all trade carried out by its mixed population of Greeks, Romans, and Jews, and later by early Christians as well. The importance of this city cannot be stressed enough, and few people know about the many colonies Corinth founded all over the Mediterranean. As early as 733 BC, the first such colonies were established at Corcyra (Corfu) and Syracuse (Sicily). Less than a century later, many more settlements followed, like Epidamnus (Dϋrres) and Apollonia (Fier), both in Illyria, modern Albania, as well as Potidaea in Chalcidice, Greece. Corinth was also one of the co-founders of Naucratis in ancient Egypt. These facts alone prove the overall importance of the city, which rivaled Athens and Thebes.

It is not difficult to imagine the hustle and bustle of people in Alexander’s days, merchants talking feverishly with buyers and sellers, while seafarers were seeking the distractions common to every port - temples, taverns, and brothels are the same all over the world. Sacrifices to the local and foreign gods were being made to thank them for their safe arrival and to pray for a safe journey onward. Corinth certainly was no exception.

If the story is true, it was here that Alexander met Diogenes (see: Alexander meeting Diogenes in Corinth). This Cynic philosopher originated from the Black Sea and died in Corinth the same year as Alexander, in 323 BC. Diogenes’ own writings have not survived, but were known by his disciple Onesicritus, who accompanied Alexander on his Asian campaigns. It may be thanks to him and Ptolemy that his philosophy slipped into the later Alexander Romance.

A closer look at Euripides

Several years ago, most of the collection of Hellenistic art at the Louvre was housed in one of the larger ground-floor rooms. The lighting there was relatively poor, and in my memory, the statues were only touched by the changing moods of daylight.

There were no huge crowds in those days, although this is where we would find the Resting youth by Polycleitus; the elegant Aphrodite said to be a replica of Callimachus’ original; a young satyr playing the flute, a replica of an original Praxiteles; the touching elderly Faun holding a Child; a copy of Hermes attaching his sandal; the Hunting Diana in full swing; the Eros ready to shoot his arrow which is a replica of Lysippos as well as the famous Azara Hermes of Alexander the Great another replica of an original Lysippos, and several others. I often sighed that the statues were so dusty, itching to get some water and soap out to wash them off. Despite all this, the unique atmosphere in that half-lit room made you feel close to times long gone. 

Almost lost in a corner near one of the large windows stood the small statuette of a seated Euripides staring out into a world that was not his. However, it caught my attention because the back panel of this statuette listed 32 of his plays. Exhibited at eye level, I would read the titles one by one, and it was as if each name disclosed an entire shelf of papyri ready to be unscrolled.

Then the room was closed for years until the entire collection was moved elsewhere and arranged in a way that complied with the demands of today’s visitors, where each piece of art is highlighted in appropriate floodlights. There was, however, no trace of “my” Euripides, and I wondered what had happened to him. Maybe he was moved to a different room to fit another topic. Who knows?

Yet, all was not lost! At times, it takes patience, and the reward came last year when I visited a temporary exhibition at the Louvre-Lens called Music, Echoes from Antiquity. Many old musical instruments had been brought together, not only from the Greek and Roman era but also from Egyptian, Persian, Sogdian, Assyrian, and Sumerian times. To complement the instruments, several paintings, vases, reliefs, and statues represent the musicians in action.

For no apparent reason, it was here that I suddenly found my precious Euripides! The reason for this presence among the vases and small musicians was not obvious, except that Greek theater plays included choral songs that told the story. I was overjoyed to find my friend sitting in front of this oversized window presiding over his oeuvre.  

Euripides was by far the most prolific tragedian of his time, producing more than his contemporaries Aeschylus and Sophocles together. During his lifetime (ca. 480 - ca. 406 BC), he stayed in Pella at the court of King Archelaus, Alexander’s great-grandfather, and at least two of his plays were performed in Macedonia, one of which is the Bacchae. It tells the story of the  king of Thebes, Pentheus, who is killed by his mother and other women in a maenadic frenzy.

It seems no coincidence that the Bacchae is being performed this summer at the theater of the Getty Villa in Malibu, California. This production is directed by Anne Bogart (one of the three Co-Artistic Directors of the SITI Company and Professor at Columbia University)  and translated by Aaron Poochigian (who earned a Ph.D. in Classics from the University of Minnesota and an MFA in Poetry from Columbia University). This is an excellent opportunity to immerse ourselves in history and watch a play that Alexander must have seen more than once!

It is not surprising that Alexander grew up with an intimate knowledge and great love for theatrical performances, which he loved to organize all through his eastern campaigns – often inviting celebrated actors from Athens for the occasion.

Isn’t it amazing how much one small statuette has to tell?

Time to visit ancient Aiani in Upper Macedonia.

Few people have ever heard of Aiani, a lovely village close to modern Kozani, once surrounded by Kastoria, Florina, Pella, Imathia, Pieria, and Larissa in Upper Macedonia. Aiani was the capital of the kingdom of Elimeia.

The ruling king in Macedonia was Perdiccas III, who had been forced to give his younger brother Philip (the father of Alexander the Great) as a hostage to Thebes. At some time during his reign (368-359 BC), Philip returned to Macedonia, and Perdiccas gave him part of his kingdom, probably not to rule in his place but merely to rule on his behalf. According to speculations, he was entrusted with the territory of Amphaxitis, a strategic stretch of land between the Axios River and the Thermaic Gulf.

In 364 BC, Philip married his first wife, Phila, the daughter of King Derdas II of Elimeia, most probably a diplomatic alliance arranged by Perdiccas as was his right as king.

But Macedonia was faced with several threats to the kingdom’s security, and in 359 BC, the Illyrians, led by King Bardylis, envious of the fertile lands in Lower Macedonia, invaded Macedonia, killing Perdiccas and with him 4,000 brave Macedonian soldiers.  

Macedonia was on the brink of collapse and facing the problem of the king’s succession to the throne since his son, Amyntas, was still a youngster. The Athenians saw an opportunity to interfere, pushing forward a certain Argaeus and the Thracians, with a certain Pausanias already marching towards the capital city of Pella. Macedonia was in dire need of a strong leader, and given all these threats, the Macedonian Assembly proclaimed Philip as king, granting him full power, which he could not have received if functioning as regent for Amyntas. Philip, they knew, had acquired serious experience in the years he ruled part of the kingdom under the wing of his brother.

In 359 BC, Philip II was elected king, and the people of Macedonia swore their oath of allegiance. It is obvious that Upper Macedonia was at the core of Philip’s expansion, and this included Elimeia. One year into his kingship, Philip managed to unite Upper and Lower Macedonia, and he achieved it probably peacefully, consolidated no doubt by his success in crushing the Illyrians.

Presently, Aiani is in the news as the restoration of the entire city nears completion, and the site is now open to the public. The excavations have revealed a well-organized town that goes back to prehistoric times and flourished during the classical and Hellenistic eras.

[Picture from The Greek Reporter]

Aiani was built on top of a high, imposing hill, meaning that all constructions were made upon successive stepped terraces. Archaeologists have exposed large portico structures belonging to public buildings, a water cistern, and several private houses spread over several levels because of the slope of the terrain. At the foot of the hill, extensive cemeteries and graves have been located, ranging from the late Bronze Age to the end of the 1st century BC. Besides the usual chamber tombs and cist graves, a heroon has also been found, confirming the presence of the highest social class. The wealth of the grave goods proves that Aiani maintained successful commercial and cultural relations with the rest of Greece. Contrary to what one thinks, Upper Macedonia certainly was not an isolated area.

The landscape, it must be said, is very different from what we find near Pella, Vergina, and Thessaloniki. This is a true high plateau swept by the wind, poor in agricultural land, and only fit for herding sheep and goats.

Until now, Aiani could only offer its precious Archaeological Museum to visit, which is a true treasure trove with, for instance, the oldest pieces of matt-painted pottery in black and white in the world. Some of the museum’s artifacts date back to the Mycenaean era, but most are from Greece’s archaic and Hellenistic times. This museum also holds some of the oldest samples of writing on archaic pottery, which confirms that the inhabitants wrote and spoke Greek well before the 5^th century BC.

It will be interesting to see this site now that it has opened to the public!

Was Chandragupta inspired by Alexander?

Chandragupta went down in history as King of India, founder of the Maurya Empire, and ruled from 321 to 297 BC; he was the first to unify India as we know it today. His Greek name was Sandracottus or Sandrokottos, as is reported by Megasthenes, the Greek envoy of Seleucos Nicator, Alexander’s successor in that part of the world.

Yet Chandragupta’s appearance in history started much earlier when, as a youngster, he spent time at Alexander’s camp either as a fugitive or as an exile. He was born in 340 BC, making him only sixteen years younger than Alexander. How and under what circumstances both men met is told in different ways. Some say that after his victory over Porus, Alexander had been approached by Chandragupta to help him overthrow the neighboring Nanda Kingdom, which extended from Punjab to the Bay of Bengal and whose capital was Pataliputra (the Greek Palimbothra), modern Patna. Another theory presented by Plutarch is that Chandragupta, being of lower birth on his mother’s side, sneered at the base origin of his King Xandrames of the Nanda Empire, whose father was a barber. The pot calls the kettle black! Dad had murdered his king to marry the queen with whom he was romantically involved, although Curtius claims that the queen killed her husband with her own hands. Well, if his father did indeed murder the king, this led evidently to the exile of Chandragupta. Whatever version is true, Chandragupta ended up spending time at Alexander’s camp. He must have been 14 or 15 years old at the time, which means that he was about the same age as Philip, Alexander’s father, when he was taken to Thebes as a hostage – in other words, the right age to be influenced to accomplish great deeds (and Chandragupta did not need much conviction, it seems!)   

The fact is that the last king of the Nanda Dynasty was Mahapadma Nanda, and that the collapse of his empire, just east of Porus’ realm, was imminent. It seems that Alexander was informed of this situation while he was at the Hyphasis River (modern Beas). The prospect of including this important and powerful country in his conquest may have been the true reason for Alexander’s decision to march further east and not his dream to reach the end of the world, as is generally assumed. The mutiny of his army changed the course of history. This is, however, where Chandragupta takes over. As soon as Alexander left India, Chandragupta managed to unify the northern tribes and assemble a formidable force, and since Alexander had not overthrown the Nanda Dynasty, he decided to do it himself.

When Alexander died in 323 BC, Chandragupta seized his chance and set out to throw the Macedonians out and successfully conquer Punjab. The Macedonian successors were too busy and too late to realize that they had neglected India in their cutting up of Alexander’s empire at the Partition of Babylon. Besides, Antigonus Monophthalmus, as a self-proclaimed master of Asia, showed little interest in the eastern part of his empire and left it pretty much to rule itself.

Chandragupta needs no further encouragement to dethrone the Nanda king, and he exterminates every member of his family. As a result, he became the first king of the Mauryan Empire in 322 BC. He inherits Nanda’s huge army, which, increased with his own forces, brings it to a total force of 30,000 cavalry, 600,000 infantry, 9,000 elephants, and a multitude of chariots. By now, there is nothing to stop Chandragupta from further expansion, which is favored by the conference of Triparadeisus held by the Diadochi in 321 BC, where they once again failed to make clear provisions for the Indian satrapies. By 317 BC, Chandragupta effectively controlled all of northern India, reaching from the Khyber Pass to the Ganges delta, and he then concentrated on further expansion, becoming eventually the absolute ruler of this new empire that reached from the Himalayas down to the Arabian Sea.

In 309 BC, Seleucos entered a pitched battle with the 70-year-old Antigonus Monophthalmus, who was defeated and withdrew to Syria, leaving Seleucos as the sole ruler of Bactria, Sogdia, and India. Four years later, Seleucos attempts to reconquer the territories west of the Indus, which Alexander had occupied some twenty years before, but he obviously lacks the time and the resources. The best he could do was to reach a diplomatic agreement with Chandragupta, along the same line as the settlement he had previously reached with the Sogdians. This happened after both parties faced each other in a fierce battle in 304 BC, from which Chandragupta emerged victoriously, and where Seleucos ceded the provinces of Arachosia, Gandaris, Paropamisadae, as well as parts of Areia and Gedrosia in exchange for 500 war elephants and their handlers; a marriage alliance completed the compromise.

This settlement of 303 BC could well be inspired by Alexander’s earlier agreement with Porus, and since Antiochus the Great renewed this very treaty a century later, it indicates that it was the most practical solution for all parties involved. It is important to note that the treaty included a guarantee of connubial rights, meaning that the rights of those children born from mixed marriages of Greeks with natives were protected – a small detail but an important one.

None of Alexander’s easternmost territories were ever recovered by any of the Diadochi, and after Seleucos attempted to that end, nobody ever contemplated it again, and all Seleucid kings from Seleucos Nicator I to Antiochus III simply accepted India as semi-independent. This may, in fact, be exactly what Alexander had in mind when he left Porus to rule his own territory and more. Besides, we should not forget the role played by the substantial number of Greek colonists who had to live alongside the native population. The growth of Mauryan power did not mean the Greek settlers were exterminated or expelled. It was a matter of simple judgment; they either adapted to local conditions and native rules to become independent from Macedonia and part of India, or they saw themselves purged.

At this point, the Hindu Kush Mountains, the Greek Paropanisos, became Chandragupta’s western frontier, an inglorious end to Alexander’s eastern conquest, it may seem. Yet all those who ever fought at Alexander’s side had learned his lessons very thoroughly. Seleucos was one of his outstanding pupils, and immediately after the conclusion of the treaty, he sent an envoy to the court of Chandragupta. This was Megasthenes, who spent many years at Palimbothra, the capital of the Mauryan Empire. We owe him some excellent reports about the geography, products, and institutions of India, for he was a unique source of information from that part of the world. His work on Chandragupta’s civil and military administration is considered to be accurate and trustworthy, although only fragments have survived. Strabo interestingly tells us that Megasthenes said we should not believe the old stories about the Indians simply because they never invaded any country outside India, and no foreign army ever invaded India till Alexander. Megasthenes must have been a fine diplomat, for he not only had to comply with Chandragupta but also with his capable advisor and minister Kautilya (also named Chanakya), who wrote down the very first laws and the constitution of the Maurya Empire, which were strictly enforced. This handbook for effectively running an empire, the Arthashastra, contained extensive information about diplomacy and military strategy, but also careful recommendations on taxation, irrigation, coinage, agriculture and mining, manufacturing and trade, and many other useful topics.

It was this Kautilya who was responsible for the administration of Palimbothra, which was headed by a Municipal Commission divided into six boards or committees of five members each, entrusted with specific duties. The administration of the distant provinces was, in turn, placed in the hands of viceroys, usually members of the royal family. The matter of land irrigation was extremely important in India, and Chandragupta made sure that everyone got their fair share, and a special department was created to oversee the land measurements and the sluice regulations. The roads were well-maintained, and milestones were set up at regular intervals of ten stadia; a royal road is said to connect the northwest frontier with Pataliputra, 10,000 stadia long! The general honesty of the people was high on the list of duties of every citizen, and Megasthenes tells us that crimes like theft or giving false evidence were severely punished. Arrian already reported that elephants, horses, and camels were only used by the king, the wealthy, and those of the king’s entourage. All in all, an organization that is very different from that known in the West or even in Persia.

At the summit of his power, Chandragupta had eliminated all his opponents and ruled over an empire larger than what British India ever would be! He owed his power and empire to his enormous army, which was organized and equipped in such a way that it became extremely efficient. Not unlike Alexander’s forces, it was a standing army where each man was on a regular payroll, and the government provided horses, arms, and other equipment. From his Nanda campaign, Chandragupta acquired 8,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 elephants. Just imagine what Alexander would have done with such an army force that exceeded his own by far. He definitely could have marched to the end of the earth!

The reality was that the impressive number of troops from the Nanda Dynasty increased Chandragupta’s own troops, totaling his infantry to 600,000, some 30,000 cavalry, and a staggering 9,000 elephants, besides an unspecified number of chariots. His men were very well-equipped, and sources tell us that each cavalry carried two lances (saunia) and a small shield (buckler). All infantrymen were equipped with a broadsword and would additionally have javelins or a bow and arrows. Each elephant, beside its mahout, would typically be manned by three archers, implying a force of 36,000 men. Each chariot, as we have seen during Alexander’s fight at the Hydaspes (see: The Battle of the Hydaspes and the Genius of Alexander), would accommodate two soldiers next to the driver, requiring 24,000 men. If we add up all these numbers, Chandragupta’s army would have reached at least 690,000 men, and that is without counting its followers in the baggage train.

It is obvious that no battle could or would be fought involving the whole of this huge army, but portions of it must have been distributed all over the many provinces of Chandragupta’s newly conquered empire.

Despite such a great achievement, or maybe just because of it, Chandragupta decided to spend his final years in religious devotion as a follower of Jainism. In 298 BC, after a reign of 24 years, he left his throne to his son Bindusara. Chandragupta died shortly afterward as he starved himself to death; his empire, however, would live on for more than a century.

History or legend has it that Chandragupta liked to tell his Greek guests, “I watched Alexander when I was still a young man. Alexander had been within an ace of seizing India because its king was so hated and despised, both for his character and his low birth”. Yes, Alexander might have strolled through Palimbothra’s gardens, admiring its fish ponds, which were not far from the silt-brown fields along the Ganges River. Alexander was only three months away from taking all of India, but his soldiers refused to follow him, not realizing how much this would have meant to their king and eventually to their own conquests.

[Picture credits and links: 
Young Chandragupta from JatLand.org
Map of Nanda Empire
Head of Seleucos from Pompeii
Statue of Chandragupta from Wikimedia
Map of Maurya Empire
Place where Chandragupta died]