Artabazus, Parmenion, & Barsine...The Perfect Persian Plant

[Nicator]

I had a problem with the use of the word advisor when describing Aristander. But would the line have been blurred a bit between the "soothsayer" and "advisor" in the time of Alexander?

Personally, I think they should be kept separate. Admittedly, the soothsayer does provide advice - for example, when Aristander declares that the omens for crossing the Jaxartes are unpropitious. But he wouldn't be involved in discussions about military strategy or even political tactics (e.g. the reply to the letter from Darius) in his role as a soothsayer. He might be involved in those as an intelligent man whose counsel Alexander valued; but I can't really reconcile to myself this idea of Aristander as some great panjandrum. He was a soothsayer, who interpreted dreams and omens. There is no reason for us to give him another role.

(And yes, the reason I say that is that there is no indication in those pesky sources that he did so. But if we don't use the sources for something they might as well not be there, in which case there's no point in having any of these discussions in the first place ...)

ATB

I think advisor is not synonymous with soothsayer but rather that soothsayer is a form of adivsor (a sub category). And I would take issue with whether or not Aristander would have been used for military or political issues. Alexander was a mystic. And Aristander was likely consulted before ANY significant engagement on the battlefield. In fact, I would be willing to go further and say that when Alexander finished consulting with his staff (generals and commanders), he moved on to Aristander for a final read. Thus, his last stop before taking action would have been with Aristander. And if Aristander said the omens were not in his favor, Alexander would wait until they were. So, I agree with you about the strategy and tactics part (i.e...the details), but I would just clarify on the consult part.

I think we also need to be careful about imposing our modern day compartmentalization ideals on Alexander. Also, as far as the sources are concerned. I haven't deviated far from the source material here. I have insinuated what appears to be obvious. If nothing else, it is and should be considered an alternative explanation to Barsine. As I said before, it is a theory derived from the implications of the facts as they were laid down for us in the sources.

[marcus]

In fact, I would be willing to go further and say that when Alexander finished consulting with his staff (generals and commanders), he moved on to Aristander for a final read. Thus, his last stop before taking action would have been with Aristander. And if Aristander said the omens were not in his favor, Alexander would wait until they were.

Although he didn't at the Jaxartes, when Aristander's prediction twice told him the omens were not favourable, but Alexander went ahead and crossed the river (Arrian 4.4.3).

Also, as far as the sources are concerned. I haven't deviated far from the source material here. I have insinuated what appears to be obvious.

Could you amend that to "what appears to me to be obvious"? I'm not saying that you have deviated at all from the source material; but what you are doing is filling in with your theory where there is no source material.

ATB

[Alexias]

The assertion by Alexias that she would have been in Parmenion's care for a period of months was a surprise to me as well (I think several weeks, if I recall correctly). .

I did not say ‘months’. I said ‘some time’ and I was deliberately vague because I have no idea how long it was before Parmenion sent Barsine to Alexander. My apologies for the confusion – see my reply to Marcus above. However, having looked in Heckel, there is apparently a letter quoted by Athenaius from Parmenion to Alexander listing the spoils from Damascus. Alexander was at Marathos (no idea where that is, but presumably somewhere north or south of Sidon) and he told Parmenion to take the treasure back to Damascus and guard it. Heckel says Barsine may have been sent on to Alexander at Marathos, but equally she might have gone back to Damascus and been brought to him at, say, Tyre.

1. Barsine was a Persian through and through.

How do you know this? All we know about Barsine’s character from Plutarch is that she had received a Greek education and was of an agreeable disposition. It is your assumption that she had any interest at all in politics.

3. Barsine was only very recently widowed by Memnon...an enemy of Alexander. So recent that it boggles the mind that she could switch allegiances in the time period involved.

You are making the assumption (vastly mistaken in my view) that she had any choice in her allegiances. She didn’t. She was a prisoner of war. She had no choice about whether she became Alexander’s mistress or not. Her kinsmen had just been comprehensively beaten in battle; she had no one at Alexander’s court to turn to. What would have happened to her if she had refused to become Alexander’s mistress? Summary execution as being too much trouble to bother with and as an example to the other women, in my opinion. That, or she would have been offered her girdle to hang herself. I think your view of ancient warfare may be a little rose-tinted: we are not talking about Napoleonic times.

4. …Was not Barsine used, at least in some fashion, by Persia to keep tabs on her husbands? And, since she'd already served this role for most of her adult life...why stop now?

Again, this is an assumption you are making. What proof do you have for this?

5. Memnon's sudden death, so convenient on the heels of such a significant defeat at Hallicarnassus. According to the sources...by sickness. Wasn't this priceless bit of intel somewhat dubious?

Are you saying Barsine poisoned Memnon? Again, on what evidence do you base this, and what on earth did she gain by it? As far as I can see she lost her freedom, her safety, her home, her status, on the off-chance that Alexander might want to take a woman who was maybe 10 or 15 years older than him as a lover. Just so that she could spy for Parmenion or Artabazus? Why? Memnon’s death effectively gifted Alexander with Asia Minor. Why would Barsine want that?

Wouldn't it be naive to assume that Barsine would switch loyalties from country & kin...ever?

Who says she did? She may have become Alexander’s mistress, but that doesn’t mean he trusted her or confided in her. It was a sexual relationship, not a romantic one. I don't think anyone has ever said that Alexander fell in love with her, or she with him.

Because Alexander did nothing right away could just be indicative that he was gathering evidence for the ultimate endgame. Your speculation is on weak ground as Alexander obviously did NOT feel secure in their loyalty or he wouldn't have had them executed.

Alexander did not have them executed in Egypt when the ‘spying’ incident occurred. He had them executed nearly three years later – plenty of time for Alexander’s dependence on Parmenion’s support, and Parmenion’s loyalty to Alexander, to have undergone radical changes.

So, I'm sorry guys, but I still haven't seen anything that would run counter to the theory.

Sorry, but until you come up with some proof to back up your theory, it is going to remain just that, a baseless theory, which is fine for a romantic novel, but not for a history book. Sorry!

[marcus]

Hi Nicator,

I don't have much time to do this, so I apologise now for very brief and what might seem to be brusque replies - they aren't meant to be, but I don't have time to "craft" them better.

1. Barsine was a Persian through and through.

We don't know this. She was Persian, yes, but she had been married to two Greeks, which you yourself point out. Who's to say she hadn't been Hellenised?

2. Barsine was connected to the Persian high command structure by blood ties.

Indeed, and her father had once had to take refuge in Macedonia because he revolted against the Persian king. So does not make her rather suspect, if you are going to talk about her loyalties later on?

3. Barsine was only very recently widowed by Memnon...an enemy of Alexander. So recent that it boggles the mind that she could switch allegiances in the time period involved.

Not necessarily. She might have hated Memnon. She might have hated Mentor prior to that. She might have been delighted to be free of them and finally secure in the Macedonian camp.

4. Barsine was twice married to Greek commanders loyal to Persia. So long as the Greeks remained 'loyal', they kept their heads. We know of the extreme paranoia demonstrated by the Persians concerning Greek commanders. Was not Barsine used, at least in some fashion, by Persia to keep tabs on her husbands? And, since she'd already served this role for most of her adult life...why stop now? And what about the extreme racial hatred between the Greeks and Macedononians? I'm sure Barsine had enough time to become well acquainted with it, and thus, even perhaps sympathetic or even fully transferred over to it.

As Barsine had presumably spent some time at the Macedonian court, I would have thought she'd have been much more in touch with the Macedonian point of view than this suggests. I'm also not sure about the "extreme hatred" between Greeks and Macedonians. And now you're suggesting a degree of Hellenisation, so she clearly wasn't Persian "through and through" according to your first point.

5. Memnon's sudden death, so convenient on the heels of such a significant defeat at Hallicarnassus. According to the sources...by sickness. Wasn't this priceless bit of intel somewhat dubious?

I don't understand what this has to do with Barsine.

6. Persia was on its heels but not knocked out yet. Barsine would have no reason to back Alexander...yet.

Who said anything about backing Alexander? She was a spoil of war. She didn't really have much say in the matter, much as she might not have had much say in whether she married either of the Rhodians.

7. Parmenion likely had his own agenda. As long as it didn't run counter to Alexander's goals, Alexander certainly tolerated it.

Everyone has their own agenda. But we have no evidence that Parmenion's ran counter to Alexander's.

Wouldn't it be naive to assume that Barsine would switch loyalties from country & kin...ever? But especially while her own country was reeling under the weight of the Macedonian advance. Wouldn't it also be naive to just give Parmenion the benefit of a doubt as to the level of his devotion to Alexander. Was it 100% to Alexander or maybe...65% to Alexander...what was it? I'd be willing to concede that Parmenion's involvement here for any reason could be just what it seems to be...circumstantial. But Barsine's involvement is too perfect.

We're not talking about switching loyalties, necessarily. Barsine was sent to Darius by Memnon as a way of assuring Darius of his loyalty (not hers). Darius kept her with the army but deposited her at Damascus where he thought she would be safe. Parmenion captured the Persian baggage at Damascus and discovered Barsine (whom I think we are all agreed he might have known, at least from 15-20 years before). Parmenion realised that she was an important personage and therefore sent her to Alexander - because he couldn't send her to anyone else. For whatever reason Alexander took her as his mistress, some time between then and 328BC, and they had a child together. I don't think the question of "loyalty" necessarily comes into it as far as Barsine was concerned. She was a captive; she had an opportunity to make life very easy for herself; she might have harboured strong emotional feelings towards Alexander ...

Nah, I can't buy this one any more than I could at the beginning of the thread.

ATB

[Paralus]

There is little historical evidence for any of my suppositions…

Well said. And that might be because…

…this whole post is a supposition based on what could have been.

Not necessarily what was, of course. Supposing a “fact” is does not make it so.

The sources do not supply adequate argument to deny anything that I've stated.

And, having supposed a fact, that is poor support for same. One might just as well assert that “Black” Cleitus was planning the overthrow of his king: “the sources do not supply adequate argument to deny” such.

As for the status of her child...that he was left a bastard and not even remotely considered a viable candidate for the throne indicates a possibility that Alexander's close associates may have been aware of Barsine's status as I would allege, a failed spy. Nearchus, being younger, may not have been aware of her true status.

Heracles was a “bastard”; there was no “leaving” him as such. Alexander’s “associates” (the marshals at Babylon) never considered him for the simple reason that that they were better served by a vacuum and he was not ever viable (below). The eventual “settlement” of Babylon (in three stages) saw Perdiccas in effective control of the “kings”. This was a complicated – if crude and violent – exhibition of power politics and had nothing to do with Barsine as any “failed spy”.

Nearchus’ “youth” had precious little to do with it. A trusted “confidant” of the dead king, Nearchus was well aware of Barsine’s status: the mother of a possible heir to the throne who would be his conduit to power. What he failed to realise was the reactionary nature of a phalanx with memories of Opis: they would not have a bastard nor would they cop to a legitimate “half-caste” (Alexander IV). They would, though, support a mentally deficient son of Philip II.

As the roux for the gravy of a decent historical novel it seems quite plausible though.

[Nicator]

Paralus,
Great to hear from you again. Grist for a novel indeed.

Marcus,
I'm not going to bother addressing most of your counterpoints. That she was a Persian...through and through, is not under question. To suggest otherwise, is ludicrous. I'll just ask you this...Why would a Persian woman, daughter of a Persian Ambassador, learn the Greek culture (I suppose for the fun of it)? Do you deny that Artabazus was, like I stated earlier, an 'overt' spy? Barsine's role was certainly similar...maybe a combination of both? Who knows.

Al,
You know nothing about me or my knowledge of ancient warfare. And that is just another in a long line of really bad assumptions on your part. You have repeatedly made rash assumptions about the histories and denied that my assumptions are valid.

You said..."What would have happened to her if she had refused to become Alexander’s mistress? Summary execution as being too much trouble to bother with and as an example to the other women, in my opinion. That, or she would have been offered her girdle to hang herself."

There is nothing in any of the sources that I'm familiar with that would suggest that Alexander would ever treat a woman in such a way. Respect for his mother, his treatment of the incidence of the rape of TImoclea, the treatment of the entire Persian royal household (with the exception of Stateira concerning the unknown parentage of her pregnancy), his harsh treatment of the two soldiers that committed rape in Asia Minor, on and on...

You said..."How do you know this? All we know about Barsine’s character from Plutarch is that she had received a Greek education and was of an agreeable disposition. It is your assumption that she had any interest at all in politics."

HaHaHaHaHaHa....still laughing at that one...Let's see, she's the daughter of Artabazus and descended, in some fashion, from a former Great King of [wait for it...wait for it..........(ok, here it comes) PERSIA! And your contention is that I'm making an assumption here...OMG!? I guess next you will argue that Artabazus was not her father OR Persian? Who knows, maybe you are simply unable to see the forest through the trees. Maybe you're one of those types that gets so bogged down in the details that he cannot comprehend the implications.

You said..."You are making the assumption (vastly mistaken in my view) that she had any choice in her allegiances. She didn’t. She was a prisoner of war. She had no choice about whether she became Alexander’s mistress or not."

No, I am not the one making the assumption here. You are. It is an assumption that she was forced into this arrangement with Alexander. And per your 'assumption', It sounds like you are accusing Alexander of being a serial rapist?

You said..."Who says she did? She may have become Alexander’s mistress, but that doesn’t mean he trusted her or confided in her. It was a sexual relationship, not a romantic one. I don't think anyone has ever said that Alexander fell in love with her, or she with him."

Again...YOU are assuming something about the relationship here in that it was 'sexual'. That is just as great an assumption as that she was a 'spy'. At least with the spy theory, 'overt' or 'covert', there IS a basis for it in that Artabazus by virtue of being her father provided a framework for her lifelong outlook (as all parents do for their children automatically). And, then there is the glaring fact of her Greek education along with her placement in marriage to the Rhodians. Indeed, likely following her father's example, her study of the Greek culture was for a purpose. And in a duality of purpose, her role was strongly indicated to keep tabs on these greeks for good measure AND to act as a good faith trophy wife from the Persian Royalty.

You said..."Alexander did not have them executed in Egypt when the ‘spying’ incident occurred. He had them executed nearly three years later – plenty of time for Alexander’s dependence on Parmenion’s support, and Parmenion’s loyalty to Alexander, to have undergone radical changes."

Sounds like more assumptions that seem universally accepted but hopelessly misconstrued. It could be that this relationship went sour, as you suggest, overnight. But it's much more likely to have been a gradual thing that occurred over quite a few years. It would be incredibly naive to think that Parmenion was, at any time, universally loyal and devoted. He was an old, experienced general that certainly understood the machinations of intrigue. But like I said earlier, his involvement here is less certain. It only jumped out to me that it was Parmenion that handed her over to Alexander with the eye popping phrase..."she would be good for you".

[marcus]

Hi Nicator,

I'm afraid it does seem to me that you are persisting with a theory that really has no basis. The problem is, you are rubbishing other people's objections but not acknowledging the fact that your own theory has absolutely no basis in any of the evidence that we have.

Now, the fact that there is no evidence does not mean that you are wrong; but it does make it rather difficult for people to accept. Therefore, why can you not acknowledge the points other people make with better grace. For instance, you say:

Marcus,
I'm not going to bother addressing most of your counterpoints.

Well, why not? I would have thought that my counter-arguments are at least deserving of some consideration and certainly do not deserve to be ignored as you have clearly decided to do. Now, you might disagree with me - you clearly do - but my counter-arguments won't disappear, or be any less valid, by your ignoring them.

That she was a Persian...through and through, is not under question. To suggest otherwise, is ludicrous. I'll just ask you this...Why would a Persian woman, daughter of a Persian Ambassador, learn the Greek culture (I suppose for the fun of it)? Do you deny that Artabazus was, like I stated earlier, an 'overt' spy? Barsine's role was certainly similar...maybe a combination of both? Who knows.

Well, you've sort of answered your own question here, and also contradicted yourself, as well as forgetting one of the points that appeared in an earlier post to be one of your key ones, that of Barsine's previous two marriages. First, if she learned Greek language and culture, then she cannot possibly be described as "Persian, though and through". Then you say "Why would ... learn the Greek culture?" Er ... not for the fun of it, but maybe because (a) she spent some time in Macedonia, and (b) because she was married to two Greeks.

Then you ask if I deny that Artabazus was an 'overt' spy. Well, er, yes, I do. There's no evidence that he was. How can I accept that he was without any evidence?

To be honest, I'm not going to answer your comments to Alexias, because it's up to him to do that. I do agree with you that Alexander was unlikely to have executed Barsine, but I don't really have much objection to everything else he said - but you seem intent on not paying any attention to what other people are saying, or acknowledging that we might have a few sensible points ... so this is getting rather silly as a discussion. Like Paralus says, go write the novel, and I'm sure it will be interesting. Continue to discuss it here, by all means, but please do give other people the courtesy of a respectful response to their arguments.

All the best

[Nicator]

Marcus,
The only reason I didn't answer all of your counterpoints was because I was really miffed by Al's post and wanted to get onto that. As usual, you have made excellent responses and due to the longevity of our relationship, you wouldn't be able to get my ire up to the level that Al has done. Attacking my posts is one thing...attacking me is quite another. I haven't written on this site for a few years. So, some of what I've written or responded to I'm sure shows an excessive amount of rust but my main points ARE based on Barsine's familial relationship, her families political status, and the circumstances surrounding all of it. And as I stated earlier, so much of what you and Al have contended (and I would also argue to be the accepted version) is based on assumptions that many, if not most, of the counterpoints are equally presumptive.

As far as Artabazus' 'overt' spy status...again, that is the job of any foreign dignitary. That's why I say 'overt' as opposed to 'covert'. He did what he did out in the open and with full knowledge of Philip's court. It's not news...it's just history. It does not stretch the mind to assume Barsine, in some fashion, did the same. Perhaps, if she was acting in this role, it was also 'overt' and thus, not news.

Thus, it is really unfair for you to say that there is no basis for any of it. And I think your blindly looking the other way on this issue is strange. What, do you propose, was Artabazus' purpose?

You said..."Now, the fact that there is no evidence does not mean that you are wrong; but it does make it rather difficult for people to accept. Therefore, why can you not acknowledge the points other people make with better grace."

Come on Marcus, I've been abused by you & Al repeatedly. In response, I've been extremely tolerant of that abuse throughout this entire thread...even apologetic on several issues. I haven't heard anything like that in return. Let's not get personal on this. I haven't heard anyone giving me or my theory any respect. And repeatedly,
key points have been ignored or countered with assumptive arguments.

You said..."Well, you've sort of answered your own question here, and also contradicted yourself, as well as forgetting one of the points that appeared in an earlier post to be one of your key ones, that of Barsine's previous two marriages. First, if she learned Greek language and culture, then she cannot possibly be described as "Persian, though and through". Then you say "Why would ... learn the Greek culture?" Er ... not for the fun of it, but maybe because (a) she spent some time in Macedonia, and (b) because she was married to two Greeks."

There is no contradiction here. It's naive to assume she learned Greek for the 'fun of it'. It's more likely she was groomed with a purpose true to her pedigree. However, I would agree with you that the accepted assumption was that she learned Greek so she could communicate with her husbands.

That she was a Persian...through and through, is not under question. To suggest otherwise, is ludicrous. I'll just ask you this...Why would a Persian woman, daughter of a Persian Ambassador, learn the Greek culture (I suppose for the fun of it)? Do you deny that Artabazus was, like I stated earlier, an 'overt' spy? Barsine's role was certainly similar...maybe a combination of both? Who knows.

Your response..."Then you ask if I deny that Artabazus was an 'overt' spy. Well, er, yes, I do. There's no evidence that he was. How can I accept that he was without any evidence? "

Already answered above.

You said..."To be honest, I'm not going to answer your comments to Alexias, because it's up to him to do that. I do agree with you that Alexander was unlikely to have executed Barsine, but I don't really have much objection to everything else he said - but you seem intent on not paying any attention to what other people are saying, or acknowledging that we might have a few sensible points ... so this is getting rather silly as a discussion. Like Paralus says, go write the novel, and I'm sure it will be interesting. Continue to discuss it here, by all means, but please do give other people the courtesy of a respectful response to their arguments."

Well, at least we finally agree on something. I've paid attention and acknowledged the few 'sensible points' to the same or greater degree than I've been awarded in return. A novel could just as easily be written about the accepted version of Barsine, except it's less plausible and rests on less adequate historical fact.

And again, don't expect my respect unless you and the others are willing to be equally respectful in return.

[amyntoros]

That she was a Persian...through and through, is not under question. To suggest otherwise, is ludicrous. I'll just ask you this...Why would a Persian woman, daughter of a Persian Ambassador, learn the Greek culture (I suppose for the fun of it)? Do you deny that Artabazus was, like I stated earlier, an 'overt' spy? Barsine's role was certainly similar...maybe a combination of both? Who knows.

Well, you've sort of answered your own question here, and also contradicted yourself, as well as forgetting one of the points that appeared in an earlier post to be one of your key ones, that of Barsine's previous two marriages. First, if she learned Greek language and culture, then she cannot possibly be described as "Persian, though and through". Then you say "Why would ... learn the Greek culture?" Er ... not for the fun of it, but maybe because (a) she spent some time in Macedonia, and (b) because she was married to two Greeks.

And her mother was Greek too - Rhodian, and the sister of Mentor and Memnon:

Diodoros 16.52.4 [4] for there had been born to Artabazus by the sister of Mentor and Memnon eleven sons and ten daughters.

According to Heckel there's also a reference to this in Demosthenes (23.154,157) but I don't have the book for reference. Aren't you reading Demosthenes right now, Marcus?

Elizabeth Carney in Women and Monarchy in Macedonia(p101, 102) discusses Barsine's background:

Barsine's background was eclectic and cosmopolitan She was born into the very highest Persian nobility, into that now quite Hellenized group of satrapal families that had dominated Asia Minor for more than a century. Yet she was also related to the Greek Mercenary adventurers whom her satrapal relatives increasingly used to fight their frequent battles among themselves and against their kings. The rest of her life would continue to reflect this rich cultural mixture, a mixture that in the end would cause her death.

Best regards,

[Alexias]

Dear Nicator,

You have my apologies if I have offended you. However, I did not make any statements about your level of knowledge. I was attacking the logic, or illogic as I see it, of your statements. I am not going to bother responding to your points in detail because, frankly, I am not interested in pursuing a fruitless argument. None of your assertions are proof that Barsine acted as a spy: they are arguments in support of your theory that she could have acted as a spy. There is a difference. Until you can point to something in the sources, or provide a new and convincing interpretation of something in the sources, you have no proof. Yet even if you do prove that Barsine, Parmenion and Artabazus were all spies, unless you can show that it affected the course of history, what does it matter?

[marcus]

Come on Marcus, I've been abused by you & Al repeatedly. In response, I've been extremely tolerant of that abuse throughout this entire thread...even apologetic on several issues. I haven't heard anything like that in return. Let's not get personal on this. I haven't heard anyone giving me or my theory any respect. And repeatedly, key points have been ignored or countered with assumptive arguments.

Well, I am sorry if you feel I have abused you at any point. I have endeavoured not to do so, so if you have perceived abuse in anything I've written, then please accept my apologies.

What I have done, however, is to give your theory the respect of arguing against it, when I could have just told you it was nonsense and left it at that. If the amount of time I have put in to arguing against it has not been respectful, then I'm not sure what else I can do. If arguing against your theory is abuse, then I'm not sure where the element of discussion and debate is supposed to exist in this forum.

As for "key points" being "ignored or countered with assumptive arguments", well, I think that's a bit rich. I haven't ignored a single point you have made, and I would, with the greatest of respect, say that it is your argument that has been "assumptive". Isn't that what you have constantly admitted?

And again, don't expect my respect unless you and the others are willing to be equally respectful in return.

I'm really not sure how to respond to that. As I say, I don't feel I have been disrespectful at all, and if you feel that I have then I regret it. But it does cut both ways, and I have to say that I am feely rather disrespected myself, here.

Oh well, that's the cut and thrust of the forum, I suppose. Perhaps there's no point in continuing this thread, and let us hope for a happier thread on another topic ...

All the best

[marcus]

According to Heckel there's also a reference to this in Demosthenes (23.154,157) but I don't have the book for reference. Aren't you reading Demosthenes right now, Marcus?

Not at the moment (I've managed to find lots of displacement activity since I said I was going to work through his speeches), and as yet I haven't got a copy of Speech 23. But I've just done a quick search on Perseus, and it only mentions that Mentor and Memnon are the sons-in-law of Artabazus.

ATB

[Paralus]

Demosthenes, 23.154; 157:
Being at that time discharged from the service of Timotheus, he [Charidemus] withdrew from Amphipolis, crossed the straits to Asia, and there, because of the recent arrest of Artabazus by Autophradates, he hired out his forces and himself to the sons-in-law of Artabazus [...] Do you remember the immediate sequel, by which the trick was exposed in the very act? Memnon and Mentor, the sons-in-law of Artabazus, were young men, enjoying unexpected good fortune by their relationship to Artabazus.

Again...YOU are assuming something about the relationship here in that it was 'sexual'. That is just as great an assumption as that she was a 'spy'.

What then of Heracles? Most unlikely he was delivered by the stork. Clearly it was sexual and, that it did not last, almost certainly just that.

At least with the spy theory, 'overt' or 'covert', there IS a basis for it in that Artabazus by virtue of being her father provided a framework for her lifelong outlook (as all parents do for their children automatically). And, then there is the glaring fact of her Greek education along with her placement in marriage to the Rhodians. Indeed, likely following her father's example, her study of the Greek culture was for a purpose.

Artabazus, along with the other satraps, was ordered to disband his mercenary army by Artazxerxes Ochus when that king ascended the throne. Artabazus refused and there ensued the “war of the Satraps”. In this Artabazus did well until Ochus, well aware of Athens’ frailties, threatened to enter the “Social War” on behalf of her allies in revolt. This resulted in the beaching of ships and the summary recall of Chares and his forces by a thoroughly compliant Athens. Artabazus fought on with Pammenes and 5,000 Thebans until the continuing success of Philomelus, Phayllus and Onomarchus in the Sacred War forced their hand. Defeated, Artabazus fled for refuge at Philip’s court. He can hardly be described as having done so as to spy.

As far as Artabazus' 'overt' spy status...again, that is the job of any foreign dignitary. That's why I say 'overt' as opposed to 'covert'. He did what he did out in the open and with full knowledge of Philip's court. It's not news...it's just history […] There is no contradiction here. It's naive to assume she learned Greek for the 'fun of it'. It's more likely she was groomed with a purpose true to her pedigree. However, I would agree with you that the accepted assumption was that she learned Greek so she could communicate with her husbands.

The entire proposition seems reduced to Artabazus having been a “spy” as well as his and Barsine’s knowledge of Greek. Clearly, as a satrap in Asia Minor, Artabazus dealt with Greeks. He was married to the sister of a Rhodian and, as Amyntoros noted above, fathered 21 (!) children upon her. He is hardly to have done this without any communication passing between them. Clearly his command of Greek was good as he felt comfortable enough seeking refuge at the Macedonian court.

Barsine, raised amongst Greeks, will have been just as comfortable in her Greek.

[athenas owl]

Hello all! Very interesting conversation.

Just a couple of things to add...Marathos was kind of a co-city with Amrit, it is on the now southern Syrian coastline, above Sidon a bit. I think an island was involved, but I'd have to look that up. Don't know if that makes a difference or not.

Secondly, I have no idea whether Barsine was held longer by Parmenion, but by this time, Alexander had taken the female members of the Persian royal family along with him. I wouldn't find it odd if he also had the royal or noble women captured at Damascus brought into that female camp as well. I wouldn't put it past him to have thought that, seeing as he was all about making the Royal women as comfortable and honoured as possible (at least for appearances sake), he would have added some Persian female sujbects for them to feel more "at home", or have a sense of being the top dogs in at least some faint sense.

With that in mind, Barsine, with her Greek/Macedonian background as well as Persian, would more likely have been a spy FOR Alexander in the captive court of Sisygambis, than the other way around. Though I doubt that she was that either.

As with most of the history of Alexander, we don't have the detailed biographies of the female subjects.

[Nicator]

Paralus,
Other than the somewhat dubious nature of Heracles existence, the sexual relationship is not in question. So I don't doubt that Alexander had sexual relations with Barsine, I am just questioning that this was the primary basis of their relationship. So they had sex and popped out a kid...big deal. What better way to get Alexander to confide in her than to bed him and chit chat him immediately following the heat of passion. Traditionally, all men are at their most vulnerable in the two minutes following coitus. Well known then...well known now.

You said..."Artabazus, along with the other satraps, was ordered to disband his mercenary army by Artazxerxes Ochus when that king ascended the throne. Artabazus refused and there ensued the “war of the Satraps”. In this Artabazus did well until Ochus, well aware of Athens’ frailties, threatened to enter the “Social War” on behalf of her allies in revolt. This resulted in the beaching of ships and the summary recall of Chares and his forces by a thoroughly compliant Athens. Artabazus fought on with Pammenes and 5,000 Thebans until the continuing success of Philomelus, Phayllus and Onomarchus in the Sacred War forced their hand. Defeated, Artabazus fled for refuge at Philip’s court. He can hardly be described as having done so as to spy."

This is very interesting. But erroneous in application, as the era referred to was well before this incident. However, this incident was noteworthy in that Artabazus evidently already had a relationship with Philip and felt confident that he could cools his heels at the court of Philip until the storm blew over.

You said..."The entire proposition seems reduced to Artabazus having been a “spy” as well as his and Barsine’s knowledge of Greek. Clearly, as a satrap in Asia Minor, Artabazus dealt with Greeks. He was married to the sister of a Rhodian and, as Amyntoros noted above, fathered 21 (!) children upon her. He is hardly to have done this without any communication passing between them. Clearly his command of Greek was good as he felt comfortable enough seeking refuge at the Macedonian court.

Barsine, raised amongst Greeks, will have been just as comfortable in her Greek."

Again, all very valid points. And as I said in previous posts, yes, the whole supposition does rely on familial and political ties and circumstantial evidence. The problem is that the sources are woefully inadequate in detail on Barsine. This thread has gone back and forth on supposition both to and fro. My interpretation of the available evidence is stated as such. I think I've seen a good deal of rose colored interpretation of Barsine's status from the other members of pothos, but none so far that have offered any supporting information as to her alleged status as a spy. So the question raised here is how 'Persian' was she? Her country was Persia. Her father was Persian and his occupation was foreign dignitary. Her mother was Greek from Rhodes and Rhodes was effectively a Persian holding for 150 years. So, you tell me how Persian she was. And I am not accusing you of being merely 'rose colored' in your viewpoints. So, please...lets not go down that road. As with Marcus, I value our relationship far too much to be sniping back and forth needlessly.

Great comments and info...