Such a fiction could not be exposed without undermining the position of the authors, the beneficiaries of the conquest. On the contrary, their interest was to strengthen and embellish it, and that they seem to have done. So far I have concentrated on the similarities of ideology and action. I shall end with an important difference.
What is notorious in the career of Alexander is his willingness to collaborate with and use the conquered Persian aristocracy. There is nothing comparable in the annals of the Spanish conquest. The Mexica themselves were ruthlessly crushed: On the other hand, Alexander treated the Persian royal family with extreme deference; the brother of the deceased king became a Companion,81 Persian nobles governed some of the more important satrapies, and at least seven younger sons of the nobility were admitted into the prestigious Macedonian Royal squadron. The explanation is simple but informative.
For the Spaniards their new subjects were vassals of their own European emperor and submitted themselves to his supreme authority. Alexander, however, was taking over an empire and replacing the Great King. He was leading a war of revenge against Persia and simultaneously claiming to be the rightful occupant of the Persian throne. Herodotus had represented Xerxes appealing to the genealogy and respecting the Greek city of Argos as his kin.
This time it was an invader from the west coming to claim the monarchy which was his prerogative. But Alexander did not come to destroy, rather to make the Persian Empire his own. He accepted enough of the customs of the conquered to identify himself with the Persian monarchy, and took princesses from the Persian aristocracy as his wives. He was simultaneously King of Macedon and King of Kings. The differing perspective made little difference in practice.
The behaviour of Alexander to his subjects was not dissimilar from that of the Spaniards. Where there was opposition and what he saw as rebellion, he acted with total ruthlessness, as Musicanus and countless other magnates in Central Asia and India found to their cost. Although he had no god-sent visitation of smallpox to devastate the conquered populations, there were whole areas where the conquest came close to depopulation, thanks to the tactics of terror which he used. What for instance would have been the sequel in the oases of the Zeravshan valley around Bukhara after Alexander systematically ravaged the agricultural land as far the surrounding salt desert?
See the observations of Ernst Fredricksmeyer, below, pp. For large areas of Asia the advent of Alexander meant carnage and starvation, and the effects were ultimately as devastating as that of the Spaniards in Mexico. The conquerors created a desert and called it empire. On the details of the campaign see Bosworth a: Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel No age has been a stranger to conspiracies and suspicion of conspiracies, least of all our own. Even in the USA, surely the most open society in history, conspiracies both by and against the government or members of it keep occurring and, at least as often, keep being suspected where they cannot be proved.
In our age, in democratic societies, a new motive for allegations of conspiracy has been added to the traditional ones: This may have been one of the motives in charges used by lawyers defending O. Indeed, it sometimes seems that no prominent man was deemed by all who wrote about him to have died a natural death—whether he died relatively young, like Alexander the Great, or in middle age, like Aratus of Sicyon, or in extreme old age, like the Emperor Tiberius.
The conspirators we shall examine would never like two of the I should like to thank Professor Bosworth for searching questions and stimulating suggestions, which have made this essay longer and I hope better. It may yet make a film. Where Dryden was right for all ages, however, even if he intended it satirically, was in stressing that tyrannies cannot be overthrown except through conspiracies.
What did not fit into his scheme although he only had to look at earlier English history to notice it was that kings can plot against their subjects any of them whom they think too wealthy or too powerful and that, from their position of supreme power, they are much more likely to succeed. Conspiracies do not always ruin kings, as we shall see: The Emperor Domitian said that no one believes there has been a conspiracy against a ruler unless he is killed Suet.
To the extent that this was so, he had only himself to blame, because of his use of allegations of conspiracies in order to carry out his own. Those of us who have lived through the age of Stalin and Hitler will find plenty of examples of this, as well as some of real conspiracies against those rulers—though surprisingly few that can be documented and none that succeeded. One result is that public opinion is likely to suspect conspiracies where in fact there were none. The Reichstag, as it turns out, was indeed set on fire by an unbalanced Dutchman, not by either the Communists as the Nazi government claimed or the Nazis themselves as most of the rest of the world believed , even though neither of these charges was implausible in view of the records of the parties concerned.
This conspiracy theory is unlikely to be revived. But where there is powerful motivation—psychological or, often linked with it, financial—mere evidence will not necessarily allay such theories: Kennedy; or the continuing allegations, ignoring the evidence provided by the Russian archives, that charges of treason against 52 E. Badian Alger Hiss or I. Stone were conspiracies made up by right-wing enemies.
The historian, trying to arrive at the truth, must follow the hard evidence. Unfortunately the historian of Alexander rarely, if ever, has such hard evidence. He must rely on deductions from character and situations: At this point another consideration must be added, which further confuses judgement.
- Unsichtbarer Schmerz: Fibro... was? (German Edition).
- Ce genre de fille-là: (k), épisode 3 (French Edition).
- Horrors! Cults, Crimes, & Creepers (The Best of Blur Book 2);
- Prisoners of Hope!
- Living with the Master.
- Dream Finder: Discovering the Divine Through Your Dreams;
A ruler given to conspiring will be inclined to suspect the existence of conspiracies against him, especially when such suspicions suit his purpose. Hitler no doubt genuinely believed in a conspiracy by international Jewry. Stalin, after ordering the assassination of Kirov, may have believed in a conspiracy which would not have been unjustified against him by leading members of the party and by the general staff under Tukhachevski. Yet, did Stalin seriously believe, after the War against Germany, that Zhukov and a dozen other generals were preparing to betray the Soviet Union? Or, later, that Molotov and Voroshilov were, and even some of his own relatives?
If he did, what does that tell us about his mental state? As we shall see, these questions are not irrelevant to Alexander. Alexander, in one known case, did believe in a conspiracy that did not exist, on the part of supporters of Cleitus. Whether he genuinely believed this in some other cases is part of the impenetrable mystery of his psychology. The plotter does seem ultimately to have come to believe that he was surrounded by conspiracies. In some cases, this factor can obviously lead the historian into error. Anyone accused of suspecting conspiracies on the part of Alexander, where some do not see them, can only reply that, like the Emperor Domitian, Alexander has only himself to blame if we approach his claims, as transmitted by court historio- Conspiracies 53 graphy, with some suspicion.
This may, in individual cases, be mistaken, but I would reject any claim that it is unjustified. The two protagonists were heirs to a long history of conspiracies in their respective dynasties, and each of them had come to the throne through a conspiracy. In the Persian case, the monarch who had the longest reign and died peacefully in extreme old age, Artaxerxes II, had had to contend with conspiracies throughout his reign: Whether Darius III was involved in the conspiracy that led to the murder of his predecessor Artaxerxes Arses we cannot tell for certain.
Badian That Alexander was involved in the conspiracy that led to the death of Philip II seems to me as clear as when I first wrote about the subject;2 although we cannot tell whether he initiated and led it. In any case, each of the protagonists had good reason to fear conspiracies—and to anticipate them.
Alexander put his experience to good use right from the start. They were not Argeads, hence had not the slightest chance of seizing the Macedonian throne—and only two of the three were executed. No other source for his foreknowledge is conceivable. There is no record of his having sought any contact with Attalus after the domestic coup that brought Attalus to 2 Badian The replies, of varying quality, called forth by that article contain nothing to make me change my mind on either my interpretation of the train of events or the conclusions I drew from it. But this cannot be argued here.
What Alexander may have feared was that they would raise Lyncestis against him: There is no need to emend, as e. Diodorus can confuse the Tigris with the Euphrates 2. In this he contrasts with Parmenio, who married one of his daughters to Attalus. Not only was she away in Epirus at the time, but it is difficult to picture her collaborating with Antipater on such a project. His murder was also justified by a charge of conspiracy Diod. It is sometimes said correctly, I must admit that we do not actually know whether the marriage preceded or followed the elevation of Attalus and his niece-ward.
I have assumed the latter. But if the former is true, it creates an even more sinister picture: Attalus was probably not close enough to Philip to do so on his own, and we can hardly assume that Philip came across a noble girl of marriageable age by pure chance. I have not found any attestation that Alexander was, but it may not have been necessary, since the grant to Philip would presumably, in the usual manner, include his descendants.
The grant to Philip should be put about the time of the treaty after Chaeronea. Berve also accepts the charge of treasonable correspondence with Demosthenes, which is at least in the sources, but is implausible for various reasons. Alexander could not yet trust the army to accept his word and his evidence against the denials of men who had been loyal to Philip.
In total control of what was reported to the army, he had, however, shown real genius in using charges of conspiracy to make the elimination of men he feared politically acceptable. I must here repeat my warning that no reconstruction can claim certainty: They could be refined later, when he could confidently resort to show trials. It was discovered in Asia Minor when Alexander was near Phaselis. Brunt Arrian I, Loeb edn. The vulgate seems to have agreed with this.
For Curtius, see Atkinson , Diodorus is the odd man out: It appears to have been based on a different version from the one we have in our other sources Arrian, Diodorus, and Justin , but that divergence must arouse our suspicion. The view I expressed in Badian , that an interval elapsed between the deposition of Alexander the Lyncestian and his being taken into custody, is not seriously tenable. The fact that the reference to the two indices is repeated 7.
It is not to be excluded that Curtius told the story obviously of vulgate origin. The supposed letter of Alexander, proving his guilt, was imported by Hedicke Teubner into the text at 8. These are the only three individuals by this name who occur in the Alexander historians. We are not told where this Sisines was between and , when he entered the agema of the Companions, together with his brother, who had joined Alexander only a few months before Phradasmanes, Berve As for military distinction, it is quite likely that he had acquired some: Sisines, when interviewed by Parmenio needless to say, through interpreters , is said to have revealed that his real mission was to contact Alexander the Lyncestian, said to have approached Darius to offer treason, and to promise him the throne of Macedon and 1, talents in gold if he assassinated his king.
The story, as it stands, is worthless. Next, it is difficult to believe that Sisines was expected to meet in secret, and hold secret conversations through interpreters, with the commander of the Thessalian cavalry: I think it was done at the time, not later. The opportunity was too good to be allowed to pass.
By now he was far enough away from Antipater, and sufficiently secure in his own power, to remove the man, provided a plausible reason could be found. With his 15 See Bosworth a: As will appear, I think more of the details authentic than he does. But although it always means a physical pledge confirming an assurance, it can be weakly used, so that the word may be acceptable here.
Xenophon rarely uses the phrase, but see for an amusing instance Anab. Conspiracies 59 usual genius for recognizing and seizing an opportunity, Alexander at once saw that the capture of a Persian messenger would serve his purpose. It provided a perfect setting. Interpreters could be made to perform as instructed. If they were slaves, they obviously had no choice. If as is quite possible Alexander called on Laomedon and his staff cf.
From what we know of the Macedonian court, there was probably no love lost between those two: Parmenio had at once joined what appeared to be the winning faction of Attalus, while Antipater had stayed with Alexander, awaiting his chance. I think it had arrived some time before and could be effectively produced at this point. See Brandenstein and Mayrhofer They produce an acceptable OP original, with minimal textual changes. Noted already, with speculative discussion, Francis I am therefore inclined to translate: Badian feelings towards Antipater do not need documentation.
That in Pella she could have acquired information about a plot by the Lyncestian that was not accessible to Alexander surely does not merit serious discussion. Her letter presumably was based on distrust for Antipater and merely contained an injunction to Alexander to be on his guard against the Lyncestian.
Synonyms and antonyms of Pergamon in the German dictionary of synonyms
The next suspicion of conspiracy, that of Philip the Acarnanian, acts as a foil Arr. Although as Bosworth has shown, a: Even as Arrian tells the tale we do not know from what source , it shows features of dramatic embellishment characteristic of vulgate anecdotes. It is interesting that Alexander did not have his namesake tried at this time: Sisines would have to appear as a witness, and the accusation would not have survived his testimony. But he is essentially right in rejecting the story as we have it.
There are no clauses in the indicative, except where the infinitive was precluded by grammar. It would follow that he would have embraced the story of Philip the physician with open arms, and nowhere more so than in its conclusion. First, where was Parmenio? Surely Parmenio is included, and there is no indication of his being at once sent away. On the contrary, at the beginning of the very next sentence after the Philip story 2. Of course, Parmenio might have been somewhere else and then sent on from there.
A scenario can easily be constructed ad hoc that puts Parmenio either in advance of the point Alexander had reached or behind. Curtius does not call the remedy a purge, which may be to his credit. It has been suggested to me that finding and mixing the ingredients might take as long as that. Purges were not difficult to come by, and since they have a clearly defined effect, one would be as good as another if effective.
Pliny, that repository of medical lore, mentions quite a number of them. As it happens, he nowhere mentions a purge for use against fever or a chill. The nearest I have found is in the uses of dried figs De Morbis 44 ff. We must also bear in mind that court physicians would hardly rely on finding familiar plants in the unknown lands to which they were being taken, or on taking the word of potentially hostile natives for the effects of the plants they would find there.
Most ancient remedies were simple enough. As often, he could not resist the temptation of inserting a good anecdote from the vulgate tradition into his basic narrative—especially an anecdote with such a eulogistic conclusion. What is striking, however, is that Arrian retains indirect speech in the conclusion: He has in fact warned the sophisticated reader that he himself did not believe any of it. The rest is fiction, and marked as such. Coming not long after the story of the Lyncestian and sharing some features with it,22 it was later completely amalgamated with it.
However, the solution to this puzzle is hardly worth a great deal of effort and ingenuity. The original point was presumably to serve as a counterweight to the story of the Lyncestian. I have often argued that the court version of Ptolemy and in part Aristobulus should not be regarded as the whole truth and that the vulgate tradition, especially as found in Curtius, offers much to correct or supplement it.
But at some point one must draw the line. A story that, on the face of it, does not make sense even as told in Arrian, and that Arrian refused to authenticate, is perhaps hardly even worth the long treatment I have given it, were there not a tendency to defend it. It is about as authentic as the supposed conspiracy of Parmenio confessed to under torture by Philotas Curt. Essentially, Berve was right in his judgement. One lesson, hinted at above, is that Curtius is given to making up not only speeches as we all know but exciting dramatic details, even where, as here, they make no sense.
But I have perhaps been too ready to follow Curtius on other occasions where there is no other source and his dramatic details do not produce obvious nonsense. I am not now as certain as I was that we should fully accept his dramatic account of the arrest of Philotas 6.
Even speeches in Arrian should not be lightly regarded as such. But the strand of personal relations among the men around Alexander that Curtius found in one of his sources and that is not reproduced in any other of our surviving sources, except occasionally by Plutarch, does seem to add valuable and acceptable information to the court historiographers and the gossips. Badian But these details are perhaps not important. In my treatment of the affair in TAPhA 91 , — 38, I implied, without adequate discussion, that there was no such plot: Perhaps I went too far in my implication.
The sources show a great deal of variation. In Arrian from Ptolemy Dimnus is not mentioned: The only other account is in Plutarch Alex. There Dimnus is said to have been killed while resisting arrest. In Curtius the information comes from Cebalinus: Conspiracies 65 now thought the explanation had escaped him. Inevitably, Plutarch shies away from directly accusing Alexander. As far as Philotas in concerned, Plutarch knows only of a plot against him, initiated by Craterus in Egypt and taken over by Alexander.
Plutarch surely knew all the earlier sources we know and many more. He must certainly have known the vulgate account, as we find it in Diodorus and Curtius: In Plutarch, Philotas never until his trial, presumably hears of any plot against Alexander.
Of course, even if he did and failed to pass on the information, his alleged explanation, that he did not attach much importance to the matter, would seem credible: However, Plutarch did not accept this story at all. It is hard to understand why scholars have unanimously as far as I know chosen to follow the version found in the vulgate and to ignore the one followed no doubt deliberately by Plutarch, without asking why he chose to do so.
The proskynesis affair would provide a parallel. Here he must surely have seen the implication of the version he followed, that Philotas was innocent and that Alexander knew it. Badian Alexander in Egypt, turns into what he saw was the plot against Philotas at Phrada.
Plutarch never questions the existence of a plot by Dimnus and its effect on Alexander. But, being a better historian than he likes to admit as is indeed clear from other instances, both in this Life and in others , he leaves no doubt that he saw that there was no reason why his source should invent a version that made Philotas innocent, while there was every reason why the version officially propounded at the trial and after should insist that Philotas deliberately suppressed at least knowledge of the plot, hence was quite likely a participant in it.
However, he could not pursue his case to its obvious conclusion and accuse Alexander of arranging the judicial murder of Philotas as well as the undeniable murder of Parmenio: On this, see further n. We are now ready to consider what I described as the most important question: There was now an opportunity for decisive action against Philotas and Parmenio.
Alexander had a long memory: However, that memory would be stored alongside the earlier ones. Even at the time of the action against Philotas and Parmenio, Plutarch notes that the action was not without danger Alex. But by now he felt strong enough to indulge his stored-up resentment by swift action. I would not now exclude the former possibility: But the timing, and the care taken in setting the trap, on the whole still makes me incline to the more sinister interpretation.
On this reading, Dimnus was suborned to be the tool: Everything then went according to plan: I have merely been concerned to point out that the 28 Bosworth a: If Curtius wrote later than Atkinson believes, Domitian would also have to be considered Suet. Curtius may have accentuated some of the resemblances see my comments p.
I should perhaps add to my account of Plutarch that his total rejection of the official version which, I repeat, he must have known is shown by his statement For deviousness, see further on Astaspes in the Appendix to this chapter. In any case, an express messenger was now sent to organize the assassination of Parmenio, which I still think was, on either interpretation, the ultimate aim. We cannot here discuss the trials that followed the death of Philotas. I discussed them in my earlier article.
His execution could be taken for granted and Alexander no longer had to fear that Antipater might stir up Macedonia against him cf. But he genuinely suspected it seems a conspiracy by his hetairoi and perhaps even his guard when they tried to prevent him from killing Cleitus in a drunken fit of rage. This gives us a foretaste of what was to come years later.
But what is important about the Cleitus affair is what followed post Cliti caedem as Curtius put it: It is 29 Habicht Badian only Curtius who alerts us to it, and to its effect: Both Alexander and his officers now knew that the army would support him, no matter what. There is no more talk of conspiracies for about a year, when we reach a very peculiar plot—the conspiracy of the pages, perhaps the first genuine conspiracy of the reign, certainly the first where the sources allow no doubt as to its real existence.
The story is told in all the standard works and need not be set out here. The death of Cleitus and its aftermath, as Curtius pointed out, had suppressed opposition. Jealousy felt for those who had made names and fortunes for themselves would not be unexpected. This may well in part represent talk picked up among the lower officer ranks, if it is entitled to any belief. See my analysis in Badian For the interesting prosopographical item of Philotas son of Carsis, a Thracian, among the conspirators, see Berve Conspiracies 71 that apparently ascribed his escape to his fortuna and one that credited the Syrian; which shows that Aristobulus, at least, did tell the story of the conspiracy.
Now, the theme of a supernatural warning of a conspiracy is not unique in the tale of these plots: If so, it would follow that Alexander knew about the conspiracy unless we are willing to believe in the divine warning as such and decided to let it mature and fail, since that was certain to lead to his being fully informed about it.
However, he was also given to stressing the favour of gods and fortune for Alexander34 and, had this been the official version, should have had no hesitation in reproducing it. I am inclined to believe that Alexander did know about the plans, but had no detailed information, and so had recourse to the one way of making sure he would find out.
In fact there is no evidence for his being at all close to Alexander; much of his work seems to have been secondary interpretation. Actual failure, of course, was likely to lead to a sauve qui peut reaction, since no one would want to be anticipated. We cannot tell what happened to Epimenes, who actually started the unravelling of the plot. His fate is not mentioned in Arrian. In Curtius he shares in the rewards given to the informers, but this may be fictitious elaboration.
Arrian suppresses the story. Badian version stated that he was not only guilty, but had been denounced under torture, it seems by the pages Arr. Ptolemy, at least, must have been present at the trial and must have known better. Indeed, it must have been hard for one who was by profession a philosopher and by choice a panegyrist of Alexander to find those two influences in such sharp conflict. As Bosworth put it He does report that most of his sources deny that the boys implicated Callisthenes.
Meaning of "Pergamon" in the German dictionary
He does not seem to have known or if he did, he ignored the decisive testimony to the fact that Alexander knew this, just as he had known that Philotas was innocent: I cannot put a name to such a putative person, who was close to Alexander at the time, hostile to him, and likely years later to remember the precise location of the commanders addressed.
Curtius is wrong in stating that the pages and Callisthenes were tortured to make execution more painful 8. He knew quite well that torture was not used for that purpose, but to extract confessions—which he also knew were not at all reliable 6. Philotas was tortured to extract new revelations, not to intensify execution. This makes it likely that Plutarch added that phrase, to specify the occasion referred to by Chares.
There were still rebellions by Iranian nobles,39 but they are not strictly relevant here.
The only probable Iranian conspiracy I have been able to find is the one we are almost forced to postulate as preventing Alexander from undergoing the ritual initiation as Great King as Pasargadae. I have sufficiently discussed this elsewhere. At the Hyphasis, what must have been a nightmare to him came true. Ever since the death of Cleitus had led to the end of freedom as we have seen , Alexander had been secure against plots by senior officers because of the unquestioning loyalty of the army shown on that occasion.
What happened at the Hyphasis must have been totally unexpected. First, according to the only full and reliable account Arr. The only possible response was to appeal this time to the officers, to gain their support by rhetoric and promises, and to hope that they would be able to persuade the men to follow. This road was blocked when Coenus stood up to speak in support of the men.
There was real danger in this. Aristobulus can be more briefly dismissed: His forceful intervention could only be due to his judging that he could attach the army to himself, even against the king—or so it must have seemed to Alexander. What he clearly could not do was to treat the affair as a mutiny which is how historians see it: Alexander was fortunate, as usual.
Not long after, Coenus died, not honourably in battle, but of disease.
- Items in search results?
- Navigationsmenü.
- Translation of «Pergamon» into 25 languages?
- Mestieri di scrittori (Alle 8 della sera) (Italian Edition).
- Passar bra ihop.
- BIPOLAR FOLLIES.
Alexander could defuse suspicion if anyone had dared to voice it by giving him a splendid funeral Arr. The immediate danger was past, and the signal to other prominent nobles would be clear. The effect, however, threatened to be undone by the disaster of the march through Gedrosia.
There is no point in trying to quantify losses or to discuss their distribution. What mattered was the effect on morale. There is no reason to disbelieve the vulgate on this see Diod. Alexander had lost his aura of invincibility, of being able as once at the Hindu Kush to triumph even over the elements.
The overpowering nature of his suspicion was first shown in his order to the satraps to disband their mercenary armies. But the overreaction documents a fear approaching panic, though we shall see that Alexander indeed had reason to 41 42 43 See now Carney For discussion of this incident see Badian For the interpretation see Badian Conspiracies 75 worry about Iranian rebellions. First, we are not told what alternative ways Alexander had found of keeping order in the satrapies and defending them against raiders and guerrillas.
Since he could not spare any of his own men for such duties throughout the kingdom, it is difficult to come up with an answer. Had he lived longer, he would certainly have been forced to attend to this aspect of the problem he had created. If he could not ensure peace, rebellions were bound to follow. Another aspect necessitated immediate action. He cannot have been unaware of the dangerous social, and ultimately political, consequences that would follow the dismissal of tens of thousands of professional soldiers, suddenly deprived of the only way of making a living that they knew and sent to find their way home as best they could.
Here an instant solution was found: As I have pointed out, Alexander threw the problem he had created to the cities, on which it imposed intolerable burdens, to solve for him. We do not hear of any effort to assist them in doing so, although Alexander could by now well have afforded it. Moreover, he probably no longer cared about the fact that the decree involved a breach of the oaths sworn between him and the cities on his accession—which they would certainly not have been allowed to ignore with impunity.
The extent of his fear could not be more strikingly demonstrated. The reign of terror after his return from India44 must in part be due to this same fear; though the element of searching for scapegoats for his failure of leadership in Gedrosia is obvious in the sources. It was not by accident, surely, that 44 See Badian There can be no doubt that there was a reign of terror: I took care to collect the actual figures and distinguish possible from attested victims.
Badian the only Macedonian commanders caught up in it were Cleander, brother of Coenus, who had so conveniently died in India, and his no doubt hand-picked officers.
pergamon game | eBay
The evidence was well discussed by Bosworth, though he unfortunately substituted for the ancient, not totally absurd, story a fanciful and indefensible one. Beria who, of course, saw his own future as uncertain screamed at him: The latest I have come across is by Dr David W. The answer, as most scholars including now Bosworth would agree, must be non liquet. This is an unsatisfactory conclusion regarding what would be the most important conspiracy against Alexander. We can now turn to the much shorter topic of Darius III and conspiracies. The first point to make is that only two conspiracies against Darius are in fact attested: Yet it seems that the whole of his reign is dominated by fears of conspiracy, which greatly contributed to the disasters he suffered, even though the fears were by no means unreasonable and lack of them might have turned out no better for him.
As for the rest, his own analysis shows no good reason for preferring typhoid fever to some of the other possibilities he advances. We may note his explanation of why Alexander did not receive better care: I regret to say that the most prestigious American medical journal has added nothing of value to the parlour game.
According to Diodorus The name is proleptic, but the statement must surely be accepted. We must assume that, among the descendants of only Artaxerxes II, said by Justin They might now be assumed to be waiting for their chance. Had Darius been able to distinguish himself by a major military success before he met Alexander, his position would have been immeasurably strengthened. Unfortunately, he had no opportunity for doing so; and indeed, he had never commanded in a battle or a campaign before he came to the throne. The article is scheduled to appear in HSPh The case is described by A.
Although Khababash was certainly at one time recognized as pharaoh, the date is quite uncertain. None of the Alexander historians tries to build up Darius as a worthy opponent of Alexander. They would hardly have missed the opportunity, if he had indeed won such a major success as the reconquest of Egypt within months, when it had taken his predecessors generations.
Their view of him is in fact quite the opposite: Conspiracies 79 position in case Alexander resumed the invasion. He was unlucky in that the Rhodian commander Mentor, architect of the reconquest of Egypt and of Asia Minor, and under Ochus supreme commander in Asia it seems , had died. However, had he lived, it is doubtful whether Darius could have retained him as such.
Even when he knew that Alexander was preparing to renew the invasion, he felt unable to appoint a commanderin-chief there. Memnon, as was clear, could not be trusted— and in any case would probably not have been accepted by the noble Persians stationed there, without a strong King like Ochus to impose him. A daughter of his by an earlier marriage had married a noble Mithradates Berve It is noteworthy that we never find him exercising any authority over the others or transmitting orders from the King.
He certainly could not trust any of them to hold the supreme command— and win the major victory that was no doubt expected. It was only after the battle and the death and disgrace of the commanders that he appointed Memnon commander-inchief in Asia; but only after Memnon had sent his wife and son to Darius as hostages—whether, as Diodorus reports, spontaneously, in the hope of thus attaining the 53 See Berve De Fluviis, who were exposed long ago in the edition of that essay by Rudolf Hercher On the satraps, see a beginning Seibert Badian command, or as we are entitled to believe because it had been suggested to him this might be helpful.
It is doubtful whether any of our sources would know them, which they presumably could do only from Memnon himself or a close associate. We do not know how much time Memnon had, before his death, to advance the siege of Mytilene; but from what we can gather of his activities before this, probably not very much.
After this, we do not learn from Arr. The speed and efficiency he showed on the march only confirm that, whatever his defects as a commander in the field, he was a great organizer. Conspiracies 81 from the east: The achievement should be judged by comparison with the length of time it had taken Xerxes and Artaxerxes II to collect a royal army admittedly including the eastern contingents.
It appears all the more admirable in view of the fact that he had to bring the women and children of his immediate family, and those of some other nobles, along with him. In the circumstances, and even if we discount the lurid picture painted by Curtius and probably not based 58 The numbers of the Persian forces are, as usual, vastly exaggerated. Diodorus gives ,, Arrian surpasses him by giving , perhaps from a vulgate source: Curtius is relatively modest: The true figures are beyond conjecture.
Curtius almost certainly added them from his own knowledge of the battle of Issus. This is the fullest list. Unnamed Persian ladies are mentioned by all authors, as captured both after the battle and at Damascus. That they included the wives and children of all of? As we have seen n. For the only ladies actually named, see above. Badian on any source,61 the march was a model of organization and speed.
The satraps of the western provinces must have led their contingents, as the satrap of Egypt Sabaces did Arr. Of those who survived, we know only Nabarzanes Berve This lack of interest in our sources masks an important question: Berve, arguing from the fact that his wife was captured after Issus, argues that Artabazus must have been in the battle.
Unfortunately we do not know his position at this time, but as we have seen, all the noble ladies specifically named as accompanying Darius, apart from those of the royal family, were related to Artabazus. The royal ladies and their children could hardly be left behind: Darius had to guard against their being murdered or as appropriate married by some other Achaemenid in his absence, who would thus establish a claim to the throne—especially if Darius failed. Unfortunately as we saw the nature of our Greek sources makes it impossible to prove this.
Darius had acted shrewdly and efficiently. However, he had in the end been unlucky. His need to guard against conspiracies at home had in the end forced him into assuming the strategic risk of a purely defensive battle against a great tactician. He tried to compensate by making Alexander lavish offers, which Alexander would have been naive to accept, since they would involve garrisoning a stretch of hundreds of miles against an essentially undefeated Persian army.
The arrangements he made for Gaugamela were the best any known Persian King had ever made for any recorded battle. Of course, we have no idea of the course of the real negotiations, but major territorial concessions on the part of Darius were obviously unavoidable, and very much in his interest, in case Alexander could be persuaded to accept them. The military reasons for rejection are so obvious that we need not even consider psychological motivation.
The actual course of the battle is beyond recovery, as is true of many ancient battles. No one, least of all Alexander or Darius, can have exercised any real control over the whole battlefield. We have a better list of his commanders at Gaugamela than we had at Issus Arr. There is one noteworthy absence: Nabarzanes the chiliarch, who had been as successful as the fate of battle allowed him to be at Issus Curt. But in fact Mazaeus held the post that he had occupied at Issus, and a man of his eminence could only have been in high command and would have appeared on our list.
Did the King no longer trust him? One might be inclined to think so, in the light of later events, but perhaps there is a simpler explanation. This time Darius could not take wives and families with him as hostages. Artabazus who is also missing in the roll-call could therefore not have been in charge at home. He was perhaps too old to be given a tactical command. It is likely that the chiliarch was left in that position: Mazaeus turned out to be a good substitute, as Darius must have known.
However, Darius again had to flee, giving up most of his capitals and taking refuge in remote Ecbatana, where he was safe for the winter Arr. In the end he had seven months there. What he did with that dearly bought time, we do not know. In particular, he did not summon or prepare the armies of the east. Nor can we be sure why Darius waited until Alexander was almost upon him before leaving Ecbatana.
We are forced to speculate on all this, on the basis of very slight evidence. Since he had made no effort, in those seven months, to prepare for a continuation of the war, we must assume he intended to give up: The rumour went on to report that in the end they did not turn up! That story can be ignored; but we are no better off than Alexander, who had no idea what Darius was planning ibid. Conspiracies 85 had at one time demanded, and thus save the rest of his kingdom from devastation—and wait for another chance.
But if so, why did he not meet Alexander at Ecbatana and do what he intended to? The answer, as it emerges from subsequent events, must be that there were men around him who had very different ideas: This means that, when he left Ecbatana, Darius was no longer a free agent. The conspiracy that ultimately cost him his life must have started at Ecbatana. Bessus and Barsaentes Berve We may well believe, as the vulgate has it,67 that Bessus, himself no doubt an 65 For this suggestion see especially my articles cited in n.
If the whole kingdom was handed to him, with Darius alive, this would apply with even greater force. The eminent Greek epigraphist M. Hatzopoulos has recently suggested , esp. Not to mention the fact that he only received those reports when already on his way to Media Arr. Thus, the ambassadors may have reached Alexander early in , during his long stay at Gordium. Whether Leonnatus and Philotas if the famous hetairoi were among the neogamoi sent home for the winter, we cannot guess.
No offspring are attested, but that is not significant. But in any case they would have had plenty of time to accompany the ambassadors, adjudicate as Hatzopoulos prescribes for them, and return to Gordium before Alexander resumed his march in May. Badian Achaemenid, who no doubt thought himself as well qualified for the upright tiara as Darius, had his own ambitions. But that would have to wait, in the interests of the kingdom. In the near future, it was obviously best to keep the King as a unifying force, with men more eager to fight than he in de facto control.
The two satraps seem to have won the powerful support of Nabarzanes, the chiliarch, whom it seems the King had trusted before Gaugamela. The three clearly formed a powerful cabal. By the time the royal train moved east, the King seems to have been their prisoner. The position of an unsuccessful King was always unenviable,68 as Xerxes had known long ago. That, as such, he was still important is clear from the actions of the conspirators.
On the final stage of the conspiracy we have at least some information, though not much that can be trusted. Curtius gives a detailed and dramatic account, but it consists chiefly of speeches perfused by his own invention, as is shown by sententiae and commonplaces that would have been applauded by Seneca, as well as by demonstrably Roman concepts. Modern scholars generally recognize that Xerxes crossed to Asia at once, not through cowardice but to prevent rebellion. That may be a Greek guess, but it would be important for him to do it, no matter what his future intentions.
Nothing can be got out of the romance, characterized by speeches, in Curt. For Roman material, see the request that Darius transfer his imperium and auspicium to another 5. He and his mercenaries would not only have had no idea of what Persian nobles had been discussing among themselves, but would have had to find an explanation for their final desertion of Darius and the lateness of their surrender see text above. Conspiracies 87 know, and few Persians did. Our information comes mainly, as has often been conjectured, from the Greek mercenaries and their leader Patron Berve This information is certainly no better than our information about conspiracies against Alexander.
But the facts have their own logic. To prevent his escaping, perhaps with some loyal troops, and actually succeeding in meeting Alexander, they now had to bind him—with golden fetters, still showing him all due respect Curt. In any case, they still hoped to keep him alive as a figure-head and centre for the resistance they expected to organize. Had Darius had anything like this number with him, Alexander with his ultimately, we are told: Even this is, if anything, exaggerated but see below , as must be the 7, talents supposedly taken with him: Diodorus found two sources on the final encounter: Arrian briefly states that Darius was dead when Alexander arrived 3.
Badian it was vital for him to reach Darius still alive—just as the conspirators knew as their actions show that it was vital for them not to let him do so. In the end they saw no alternative to killing him. Even our defective tradition shows how reluctantly they did so, barely in time. Bessus, no doubt the only Achaemenid among them, would have to assume the upright tiara and a royal name Artaxerxes: As I noted at the beginning, the war between Alexander III of Macedon and Darius III of Persia is marked by conspiracies and anticipation and suspicion of conspiracies that form a major motif on both sides and a decisive one on the Persian side.
Alexander, a master plotter from the plot that led to his accession, skilfully uses charges of conspiracy to strengthen his position and rid himself of possible centres of rivalry, secure in the allegiance of the Macedonian soldiers, whose unquestioning support helps him in disposing of Philotas and Parmenio.
But the master plotter is an easy victim to fear of conspiracy. The resulting reign of terror on his return from India led to far-reaching decisions, which, had he lived longer, were bound to present him with major political and military problems. When at the end even the gods seemed to turn against him, he became obsessed with fears of conspiracy, from the death of Hephaestion to the described as a Babylonian, has a purely Persian name.
He was no doubt one of the numerous Persians who had colonized Babylonia and, following Persian custom, described himself by his residence, not his descent. Conspiracies 89 final events round Babylon. It would be a fitting conclusion to this cycle if he had died as a result of a conspiracy. But our sources are unaccommodating, and we simply do not know. Darius, on the other hand, grew up surrounded by conspiracies, but never as far as we know himself engaged in any. Yet, understandably, he was constantly aware of the threat of conspiracies, and the caution this inspired governed the major actions of his reign and perhaps unavoidably led to disastrous decisions: That defeat ultimately led to the conspiracy of his nobles against him, which, much against their intention, culminated in his death.
Its result was to plunge the country that they had all tried to save into devastation and ultimate chaos. But they are close enough to our topic to deserve a mention, especially as the importance of rebellions led by Iranian nobles while Alexander was in India and perhaps continued after his return it is only those that will concern me here has usually been grossly underestimated, not least by me.
The sources report them briefly, take them lightly, and never depict them as dangerous: I shall here try to make amends, as far as one can do so. It is a symptom of the way in which this topic has been downplayed, with modern scholars following the ancient sources, that, as far as I can see, no list of these rebels has ever been collected. I hope no important Iranian rebel, or Iranian suspected of rebellion, during that period has been omitted, no matter what the evidence 90 E.
Badian allows us to say. Once committed, rebel leaders could not pull back. I suggest that the name is a compound of av. The name is found in Aeschylus, Persae 22, and that man must be an ancestor of the rebel, who obviously belonged to one of the oldest aristocratic families in the Greek record. He was confirmed in his satrapy by Alexander see Berve , who clearly wanted to avoid unnecessary conflict with Iranian nobles who surrendered. The interesting fact is that he was not one of those scapegoats blamed for the Gedrosian disaster, as I once thought. After the Bacchic procession, related at great length, Curtius briefly describes what followed, leading up to it with a Tacitean phrase: We must conclude that he found it equally dangerous to deal with a member of the oldest Iranian aristocracy, who had had ample time to consolidate his position, without thorough preparation, and that the time gained by the harmless-looking distraction of the games and the procession whatever precisely the details of that celebration was used for thorough military preparation of the arrest.
Berlin's Pergamon Museum will spend next eight years without its A costly and lengthy renovation project in Berlin's most visited museum has turned into another construction nightmare. The monumental Pergamon Altar will Donnerstag gibt es News zu den Bauarbeiten am Pergamon Museum. Bei dem waren die Kosten Chef der Berliner Museumsinsel zur Pergamon -Baustelle: Der Bund rechne derzeit mit Beim ersten Bauabschnitt des Pergamon -Museums rechnet der Bund inzwischen mit Gesamtkosten von Millionen Euro — fast doppelt so viel wie die Digitales Pergamon -Museum - Eintauchen in alte Welten.
Der Pergamon -Altar in 3D im Internet. German words that begin with p. German words that begin with pe. German words that begin with per. Load a random word. Discover all that is hidden in the words on.