The Campaigns of Alexander (Classics) (3 page)

All or much of this Arrian will have read. He will doubtless have been familiar, too, with the criticisms of the philosophical schools, particularly the Stoics, and the
rhetoricians.
⁸
These found a congenial theme in Alexander’s drunkenness, his conceit, his lack of self-control erupting into murderous violence, and his divine aspirations.

Faced with this mass of evidence Arrian decided, very sensibly, to use the histories of Ptolemy and Aristobulus as the basis of his narrative. Where their versions tallied, he tells us, he accepted their consensus as true. Where they differed, he sometimes gives both versions; more often, one suspects, he followed Ptolemy. Certainly for military matters Ptolemy is his principal source. His reasons for his choice, admittedly, do not inspire confidence. Since Alexander was dead when they wrote, neither, he claims, had anything to gain by not telling the truth, while it would be disgraceful for a king, as Ptolemy was when he wrote, to tell lies. It is not difficult to think of reasons why Aristobulus and, especially, Ptolemy might not care to tell the truth, at least the whole truth. But it would seem reasonable to suppose that Arrian had come to the conclusion, after long study of the available material, that these authors provided the most honest and most reliable accounts of Alexander. To supplement their works Arrian includes the ‘stories’ of other writers, such as Callisthenes and Chares, where these appeared ‘worth relating and reasonably reliable’.

So far as we can judge, Arrian’s choice of Ptolemy as his main source was fully justified, particularly as he concerned himself largely with military matters. For Ptolemy was an experienced soldier who had taken a part, although not at first a prominent one, in many of the operations he describes. His accounts of Alexander’s major battles, as we see them through Arrian’s eyes, are by no means free
from problems, perhaps because of the difficulty a participant has in obtaining an overall view of the fighting. We should remember too that Ptolemy was not promoted to ‘the Staff’ until late in 330. The other military operations, particularly those in which Ptolemy took part, are reported with admirable clarity, although Ptolemy’s tendency to exaggerate his personal contribution seems well established.
⁹
This is understandable, and unimportant. Less excusable is the apparently systematic denigration of Perdiccas, his bitter enemy in the struggle for power after Alexander’s death.
¹⁰
The main fault of his book, it seems, lies elsewhere, in his reticence about some of the more controversial, and perhaps discreditable, episodes in Alexander’s career. Arrian does not cite him as a source for his narrative of the murder of Cleitus, although it is difficult to believe that Ptolemy did not mention the tragedy, while neither he nor Aristobulus is the basis of Arrian’s account of Alexander’s attempt to introduce the ceremony of prostration (
proskynesis
). It would seem that Ptolemy said no more than he had to about these incidents. The same is probably true of the ‘plot’ of Philotas and the conspiracy of the Pages, although he asserted the guilt of Philotas and Callisthenes.

Aristobulus’ book provided a useful supplement to Ptolemy, since he was, it seems, more interested in geography and natural history. Most of the geographical and topographical detail in the
Campaigns
comes from Aristobulus and it was he who described Alexander’s measures to improve the canal system of Babylonia and the navigation of the River Tigris. Aristobulus was ordered by the king to restore the tomb of Cyrus near Pasargadae which had been plundered by robbers, and it is to him that we are indebted for the description of the tomb before and after it was robbed, a description that modern archaeology has confirmed. It is probable that the vivid narrative of the march through the Gedrosian desert with its valuable botanical observations comes from the same source. It is Aristobulus too who related the exploration of the coasts of Arabia and the plans which Alexander had made for its conquest. One of Alexander’s motives for the expedition, Aristobulus tells us – we learn this from Strabo, for Arrian does not mention the name of his source – was the expectation that the Arabians would recognize him as a god.

But it is on the personal side that Aristobulus’ account is open to question. Whereas Ptolemy had been content to pass over the less pleasant aspects of Alexander’s character, Aristobulus’ book seems to have had a distinctly ‘apologetic’ character which earned him in antiquity the soubriquet of ‘flatterer’ (
kolax
). He justifiably stressed the generosity of the king towards the captured Persian royal family, and put forward the tenable view that Cleitus asked for trouble, but although he asserted the guilt of Philotas and Callisthenes he was apparently as reticent as Ptolemy about the reasons for his judgement. Then his statement that the king was not a heavy drinker, but remained long at banquets only for the sake of the conversation, must provoke a smile. The murder of
Cleitus alone disproves it. In fact, it represents an excessive reaction from the quite indefensible view that Alexander was habitually drunk. Many writers depicted the king towards the end of his life as a prey to superstitious fear. According to them Alexander, on the advice of his seers, put to death the sailor who had worn the royal diadem and the man who had sat upon the royal throne. Aristobulus, however, stated that the sailor was merely flogged and then let go and that the second man was tortured to reveal his motive, implying, it would seem, that he suffered nothing worse. But, as the man was a scapegoat, this seems doubtful. On the other hand, Aristobulus relates that he learned from the seer Peithagoras himself that Alexander had treated him with great favour because he had told the king the truth, namely that his sacrifices had disclosed impending disaster for him.

Arrian brought to his task patience, common sense, and a shrewd knowledge of human affairs, as well as considerable military and administrative experience. In military matters his adherence to Ptolemy produced good results. Here he followed a first-rate source well up in the inner circle of the Macedonians, whom he seems almost always to have understood. We might be tempted to depreciate Arrian by saying that he did little more than summarize Ptolemy’s narrative. To do so would be unfair. We have only to compare his account of Issus or of Gaugamela with that of Quintus Curtius, who certainly had access to Ptolemy’s book at first or second hand, to see his achievement. This is not to say that his account of military operations is everywhere satisfactory or that he tells us all we would like to know about the Macedonian army. We do not know, for example, what the soldiers in the various units were paid, and, more important, we hear almost nothing of the logistics of the army. Again, at Gaugamela
Arrian fails to explain how a messenger from Parmenio could reach Alexander after he had begun the pursuit of Darius. Only occasionally does he appear to misunderstand Ptolemy, for it is unlikely that the Macedonian supposed that Alexander, after crossing the Hydaspes, rode ahead with his cavalry in the expectation that he could defeat Porus’ entire army with it alone. On the other hand he offers sensible criticism of Aristobulus’ statement that Porus’ son was sent with only 60 chariots to oppose Alexander’s crossing of the R. Hydaspes, and rightly commends Alexander for refusing to risk attacking the Persians by night at Gaugamela, as Parmenio advised. Moreover, Arrian nearly always uses technical terms correctly, an immense help to the student of military history, and takes care to name the commanders of the various units. His use of
taxis
(‘unit’) as a utility word and of ‘Companions’ (
Hetairoi
) to refer either to the Companion cavalry or to Alexander’s ‘Peers’ does give rise to difficulties, but for this Arrian can hardly be held responsible. The same painstaking attention to detail is evident in administrative matters. Appointments of governors are duly mentioned, and throughout his book Arrian is careful to give the father’s name in the case of Macedonians, e.g. Ptolemy son of Lagus, and in the case of Greeks their city of origin. One can imagine the confusion that would have resulted had he not done so, in view of the shortage of Macedonian proper names and the resultant abundance of Ptolemys and Philips.

We must regret, however, that Arrian has interpreted his subject in a somewhat narrow fashion, perhaps because his model, Xenophon, had concentrated on
his
expedition. Unlike Polybius, he does not discuss
why
Alexander invaded Asia – he might, however, have said that this was a matter for the historian of Philip and that
Alexander never thought of not continuing an operation already begun – nor does he mention previous operations in Asia or the existence of a Macedonian force in Asia in 334. His account of the events of 336, which determined Alexander’s relations with the Greek states, formally at least, are dealt with so summarily as to be barely intelligible. Consequently the reader, I suspect, is in the dark when, without having heard of the League of Corinth, he is told of ‘the resolutions of the Greeks’. In fact, Alexander’s relations with the Greek states and events in Greece during the expedition are almost entirely neglected. This is to some extent understandable and justifiable, although Persian hopes of transferring the war to Greece in 333 are not fully intelligible without the background of Greek discontent. Indeed, Arrian’s preoccupation with Alexander leads him to treat this important, though admittedly abortive, episode in the war very sketchily. Again, the reader must be curious, one would think, to learn what happened to King Agis of Sparta who vanishes from the pages of Arrian after receiving 30 talents and 10 ships from the Persians, even if we regard the Spartan revolt in 331, as Alexander is said to have regarded it, as ‘an affair of mice’.

Arrian clearly made no attempt to give a comprehensive account of the war, or of its antecedents. We hear only incidentally of the troubles in the Persian empire that preceded Darius’ accession in 336, and every reader must have asked himself the question: ‘Why did the Persians allow Alexander’s forces to cross into Asia unopposed?’ Even after the start of the expedition we hear what the Persians have been planning and doing only when they come into contact with Alexander. It is only on the eve of Issus in November 333 that we are told of Darius’ plans in the preceding months. Arrian deliberately chose to disregard
the Persian background, as Professor Brunt has proved.
¹¹
He was not ignorant of Persian matters; but his method ‘was to follow the movements and describe the activities of Alexander himself’.

Arrian’s portrait of Alexander is in general more open to criticism than his narrative of military operations, partly through his reliance on Ptolemy and Aristobulus. Yet Arrian’s portrait is more than the sum of his sources; for he possesses a distinct personality of his own which we can detect most clearly in his attitude to religion and morals. Many of the characteristics of his Alexander are undeniably true. We can see clearly the qualities which enabled Alexander to maintain for so many years his hold upon his men, the dashing leadership which was expected of a general in his day – although Arrian does not conceal the fact that his officers thought that the king sometimes went too far in hazarding his life – the confidence (seldom disappointed) of success, with which he inspired his troops, and his care for their welfare. We remember how after the victory at the Granicus Alexander ‘showed much concern about the wounded, visiting each, examining their wounds, asking how they were received, and encouraging each to relate, and even boast of, his exploits’. We recall his determination and persistence in many sieges, notably in the face of the desperate resistance by the Tyrians for seven long months, and his courage in adversity, exemplified by his ‘noblest deed’, the refusal to drink the helmetful of water, too little for his troops to share, in the burning heat of the Gedrosian desert – a proof, as Arrian remarks, of his endurance and his generalship. Arrian, too, rightly praises his generous treatment of the defeated Indian rajah Porus – although this was not altogether disinterested –
and his compassion for the captured Persian royal family. There are many instances of Alexander’s affection for his friends, particularly his
alter ego
Hephaestion, and his trust in them is portrayed in the celebrated scene with his doctor Philip, while Arrian warmly commends his repentance after his murder of Cleitus.

It is when Arrian’s imagination is kindled by incidents such as these that he raises the pitch of his narrative and achieves eloquence. For the most part he is content to let the story speak for itself. Certainly he deliberately avoided sensationalism and he explicitly denied the truth of such favourite stories as the visit of the Amazon queen or the week-long revel through Carmania. Perhaps no passage better illustrates Arrian’s admiration for his hero and the heightened tone of his narrative than that in which he describes the king’s return to his army after his recovery from the wound which so nearly caused his death. I quote the end of the passage:

Near his tent he dismounted, and the men saw him walk; they crowded round him, touching his hands, his knees, his clothing; some, content with a sight of him standing near, turned away with a blessing on their lips. Wreaths were flung upon him and such flowers as were then in bloom.

But Arrian’s evident admiration for Alexander and his achievements did not prevent him from criticizing his hero where he failed to reach the high standard which, as a Stoic, Arrian felt a king ought to attain. In particular, Alexander is censured several times for his excessive ambition. Arrian does not know, and commendably will not speculate about, Alexander’s future plans, but he is convinced that he would never have rested content with his conquests. The Indian wise men are expressly commended for their view that ‘each man possesses just so
much of the earth as he stands on’, and Alexander, despite his applause of this sentiment, is said to have acted always in a way completely opposed to it. It is clear that for Arrian Alexander’s conquests are merely an expression of Alexander’s insatiable appetite for fame. There is some truth in this, but it is not the whole story. It is, however, entirely to Arrian’s credit that he wholeheartedly condemns Alexander’s letter to Cleomenes, the governor of Egypt (7.23.6–7), in which the king offers to pardon him for his past misdeeds and to give him a free hand in the future if he erects temples in Egypt for the dead Hephaestion.g The historian’s understanding and humanity is apparent in his attitude to the murderer of Cleitus. Alexander’s act excites in him pity for the man who has given way to two grave vices, passion and drunkenness. The king has failed to achieve that self-mastery which, as Arrian has remarked a little earlier, is necessary before one can be happy. A similar sentiment occurs in the speech of Coenus at the River Hyphasis when he says to Alexander ‘when things go well with us, the spirit of self-restraint is a noble thing’ – surely Arrian’s own view, whether or not it was shared by Coenus.