Hoarded money

[alejandro]

Dear allIt is said that Alexander spent most of the Persian treasure that have been hoarded by the Achaemenid kings for many years, thus boosting East-West trade and creating a globalized economy.My question is: How much of the treasure was left at the time of his death? It probably was not much, and anyway it was going to be used for the (alleged) campaigns of Arabia and the Western Mediterraean.Did the Seleucids run out of money later on? How many years after Alexander's death? It would be interesting to know when the Diadochi had to start living with their yearly produce alone, without extraordinary "subsidies".Did Alexander die "at the right moment"? ie, just on time to live grandiosely and fighting expensive campaigns without having to endure the slowdown after the depletion of the treasury?I look forward to your comments (especially yours, Andrew).Best,
Alejandro

[marcus]

Interesting question, and one that I've thought about before ... without ever coming to a conclusion.I worked out some time ago that the treasure from Persepolis alone would have been sufficient for him to pay his army (as it stood after Gaugamela) for about 60 years ... so that was an *awful* lot of treasure to dispose of.If the list of tribute amounts that Herodotus gives is correct, it would be possible to work out some sort of balance sheet, considering we have some idea of the number of times Alexander had treasure sent out to him during the eastern campaigns. I'm not sure we'd be able to do a full profit and loss account for 323 BC; but my instinct suggests that there was quite a lot left over when he died.When Perdiccas was regent I imagine he had the keys to the strong box ... whether there is any source that says how the treasure was distributed once the fighting started I don't know.ATBMarcus

[abm]

i don't have the time to check things now, but i think Alexander had a lot of money left when he died. Kleomenes had amassed 8000 talents in Egypt alone. The last plans (hypomnemata) were quite costly, so if they were authentic, they suggest that Alexander didn't think he would need all his money for the forthcoming campaign against Arabia. The treasure of Kyinda contained of lot of money/metal for some years after Alexander's death. On the other hand, at Triparadeisos Antipatros apparently did not have enough money to pay the troops, so this might suggest that Alexander did not have that much left, but i don't know why Antipatros didn't use the money from Kyinda.A lot more can be said about this, of course, but that would take me too much time, unfortunately.regards,abm

[ruthaki]

At one point, Harpalus absconded with quite a bit of it. But how much?

[marcus]

I don't recall whether we know the amount Harpalus took in his first flight, just that it was a "sizeable amount"; but the second time he went AWOL he took 5,000 talents and 6,000 mercenaries (whom he presumably intended to pay out of the money - and with that amount he could support that many mercenaries for some years ...)ATBMarcus

[Paralus]

Harpalus was responsible for a treasury hoard in Babylon estimated at no less than 180,000 talents (Carteledge, "ATG", 2004). A stupendous amount that would need a somewhat extreme case of profligacy on behalf of some tens of kingdoms to dispense with.He absconded in 324 to Athens with the GÇô comparably modest GÇô sum of some 5,000 talents. An amount that would equate to several magnates's combined fortunes. Part of this personal hoard (how much?) found its way to Demosthenes (apparently the conduit) and was subsequently used to fund the most serious anti-Macedonian uprising since Thebes was razed: the "Lamian War."The bullion mentioned was apparently minted silver. I doubt very much that despite any serious attempts to do so, this amount (and it may have been more) was possible to spend during Alexander's "ownership" of it. Indeed, it appears to have funded the Diadochoi in their wars for a considerable period. Little mention is made GÇô at least for the period of "Alexander's Funeral Games" ( 323 GÇô 276; as Green puts it so eloquently) GÇô of any need to scrounge for money on behalf of the Diadochoi (if we ignore the travails and travels of Dimetrius Poliorcetes who lost possibly the last shot at uniting the "Empire" with Monophthalmos in at Ipsus in 301).Mention has been made in another post of the 8,000 or so talents that Cleomenes had acquired for ATG in Egypt. The East GÇô and Egypt in particular GÇô was a "honey pot" that the Achaemenids had milked for generations.The Hellenistic dynastic transplants were to be no different and said milking - again, particularly Egypt by the Ptolemys GÇô regularly replenished silver that found its way around the Mediterranean through the hands of ever employed mercenaries and the like.The really professional money raking and profiteering (for want of a better word) did not begin until the Romans found out just what was to be had in the East and institutionalised it. Hence the unseemly clamour for the coveted Eastern command.

[Efstathios]

There was a lot of money left when Alexander died.Dont forget that the whole empire paid taxes to the macedonians.One percentage of these taxes went to Alexander and his campaign and of course this percentage continued to exist after his death.So the treasury was renewed all the time.Of course the amount of money that was spend was probably bigger than the amount of money deposited every season ,but still the treasury had enough talents left. Then the diadochi got money from their provinces seperately.

[alejandro]

Dear allThank you very much for your comments.It seems there is widespread agreement then that Alexander could have continued living a lavish life financing costly campaigns, building grandiose temples and undertaking monumental engineering projects.So, do you think, in the end, that the extra money was GÇ£wastedGÇ¥ during the Hellenistic wars? That is, one can think that GÇôat least the biggest kingdoms, Egypt and Persia- though increasing their power in absolute terms (larger armies and fleets), they didnGÇÖt change them in relative terms, leading to a situation where a tactical stalemate was tacitly in place (with some isolated struggle around boundaries) until the arrival of the Romans?Even more, a united Hellenistic kingdom, even if not under Alexander or his son but, say, under Krateros or Antigonos or Antipatros (assuming the internal battle for primacy were eliminated), could possibly have coped (quite easily?) with the increasing power from Rome, couldnGÇÖt it? Maybe Romans and Carthaginians would have cooperated against a common foe rather than fighting each other for supremacy in the Western Mediterranean? Or the Hellenistic kingdom could have lured one of them as an ally, crushed the other and then incorporated the first one as a vassal? I could well believe this alternative story. A pity the high command was so divided. Even though I am not particularly fond of Monophthalmos, I wish he could have reunited the empire!All the best,Alejandro

[Paralus]

Monophthalmos was, I think, the realistic chance of reuniting most or all af the Empire "alejandro." Of the others, Eumenes, though a surprise packet in the field, would not have been tolerated GÇô nor was "big' enough. Perdiccas was not ever a popular bloke with the troops (as is amply illustrated by his murder at the Nile by senior commanders. Leonnatus and Craterus had already met their ends and Lysymachus GÇô though a stubborn player GÇô also was not "big" enough.Old "One Eye" though had a real chance. Had he been able to settle the Macedonian issue, only Ptolemy would have remained GÇô isolated. As it turns out, the moment Antigonus moved in the one direction the other rose behind him. Interestingly enough, Diodorus reports Antigonus as raiding Persepolis, Ecbatana and Susa of some 25,000 talents (DS 19.46.6, 48. 7 GÇô and is credited with an annual income of some 11,000 talents per year. (Any wonder the Romans were "gobsmacked" at the East). This probably says more about the state of Antigonus' satrap at the outset of these hostilities (c320). Most of ATG's horde would have been centralised one would think).In Macedonia, Antipater was at the end of a rather long life. His part was always to be bequeathed to another. In this instance, Polyperchon. One really has to wonder why such a "dill" (tactically and intelligence wise) was chosen. Cassander (the other real threat to Antigonus) immediately set about re-ordering that situation.In short, Had Ptolemy not played fast and shrewd in Antigonus' rear when old One Eye turned eye on the Hellespont and Macedonia around 312 (by backing a successful uprising by Seleucus in Gaza), who knows? The result though was constant skirmishing and fighting between One Eye, Lysymachus, Cassander and Ptolemy in various groupings until 301. Interestingly and rather instructively, Antigonus and his son Demetrius went down to the other three at Ipsus ostensibly heading the "League of Corinth. And with that went the last chance of a united Empire.At this time the "Macedonian" army was changing. It was fast becoming the era of the mercenary. Indeed veteran Macedonians were already selling themselves to the victorious general. Possibly the most glaring example being the "silver Shields selling out Eumenes.The Macedonian levies that faced the Romans at Cynoscephale (197, Philip V), Magnesia-by-Sypilos (189, Antiochus III) and Pyda (168, Perseus) were unfortunately nothing like those lead by Alexander and his father P

[Paralus]

The Macedonian levies that faced the Romans at Cynoscephale (197, Philip V), Magnesia-by-Sypilos (189, Antiochus III) and Pyda (168, Perseus) were unfortunately nothing like those lead by Alexander and his father PhilipII. As well, those armies were largely mercenary in nature. It is arguable that the army put into the field by Philip V would have defeated the Greeks at Chaeronea all those years before.The Romans GÇô on the way up GÇô using vast Italian and citizen levies were (after going to school on Phyrrus) always going to beat squabbling Hellenistic monarchs