pothos.org

G'day all.I raised on a previous thread the supposed "reign of terror" conducted by Alexander after his survival of both the Indian campaign and poorly executed return march through the Gedrosian desert. True, "reign of terror" may be more applicable to Stalin that Alexander.The list, though, is fairly long- even given the short time it encompassed. Apollophanes was first to be relieved of his duties. He died (along with a substantial number of Leonnataus' men in an uprising) before the inevitable. Ataspes was summoned to court where sometime after being warmly greeted he was executed on the grounds of treason and failure to supply the army in the desert. The murderers of Parmenio, Cleander (brother of the conveniently passed away Coenus), Sitalces and two of their subordinates (all Macedonian) were murdered on the charge of "disturbing ancient tombs and plundering temples". Orsines was killed for the same reason. And finally, Abulites had the effrontery (and lack of foresight) to dismiss Bagoas as one of the "King's harlots". The charge was tomb robbing. Alexander ran his son through with a spear GÇô no charge is recorded GÇô and then had Abulites killed.This ignores the satrap of Paropamisus, executed before the Indian adventure. It also excludes the two Iranian nobles (who were in rebellion) which Craterus dealt with.There were some serious problems in the conqueror's empire. Rumours had spread of his demise in India. Not confirmed to be sure, but enough to have several satraps and nobles thinking in terms of rebellion. This must be the reason for Alexander sending several divisions of the infantry with Craterus through Drangiana to Carmania before heading off into near oblivion himself. This on hearing reports of trouble?The situation was bad enough for Alexander to order the disbanding of all mercenary contingents throughout the empire. The city states of Greece would solve the problem of thousands of armed and battle ready soldiers roaming the east by implementing the "exiles decree". There were to be no armed satraps with 'designs", that could wait for the Diadochoi. How they were to discharge their security responsibilities is anyone's guess.Continued...

Alexander, when Nearchus did not make rendezvous at a predetermined supply point, sent emergency requests by "fast camel" for provisions. We have no way of knowing just how many of the estimated 80,000 (inc. non-combatants) were left, but it might be assumed that this was no easy order to fill. Those who failed to fill it did not live too long to regret it. Interesting that a goodly amount of those executed were Iranian. It would appear they had not taken to Alexander's rule and "racial fusion" quite as well as some would argue? Is this Thebes/Tyre on a provincial level?With all this, an unconquered territory (to be given to Eumenes later) and Thrace in rebellion (Seuthes was independent until his death in his bed sometime near the end of the fourth century), the King was off to Arabia? What was he thinking?Paralus

"Alexander ran his son through with a spear" ???Care to elaborate that a little bit more? And also,there was no "Iran" back at that time,thus no iranians.Only persians,medeans e.t.c. As for Arabia, Alexander had almost all things taken care of except from the diadochoi.Antipater had siezed the rebellion in southern greece before,so i dont see any reason why Alexander should have had to think about Thrace.The only thing that could stop him was an assasination,and that was what happened.

If you believe he was assassinated, of course ...

A fine list Paralus. Another one for the list was Baryaxes from Media who had assumed Alexander dead and claimed the Persian throne. This incident highlights the other side of this coin, Atropates was rewarded and retained for his faithful service. Also retained were Stasanor, Phrataphernes, Sibyrtius, and Stamenes.Harpalus though deserves our closest scrutiny. He (like Antipater) sees the wrighting on the wall. Fleeing Babylon he withdraws with 5,000 or so Talents and 6,000 or so mercenaries to Tarsus. When Craterus leaves Opis with his 10,000 Harpalus sails for Athens where he is arrested and his money siezed. There three letters arrive demanding Harpalus and his money. One is from Olympias in Epirus. The second letter comes from Antipater and the third from Philoxenus satrap of Cilicia. As none of these three had legitimate claim to Harpalus' money or men I find it of interest that these three would each want to get their hands on both. Olympias, alone and isolated in Epirus, would still have been aware of Antipaters frame of mind and could be forgiven for wanting the additional comfort these troops and Talents would bring to her.Philoxenus was Satrap but by now was surley subjected to Craterus' overpowering charisma (not to mention his 11500 vetrans) and was assuredly acting on his behalf. Was he acting alone or in collusion with Antipater. (Later in the Lamian war when he left Cilicia he maintained his own garrison of 4,000. He seemed not too interested in relinquishing his hold over this important Satrapy.)And then there is Antipater. What do you suppose he could have wanted that much money and manpower for?

In 324 Alexander arrived in Susa where Abulates ruled Susiana and his son, Oxyathes, was Satrap of Paraetacene. Both were executed, Alexander himself executing the son by running a spear through him.

Hello Jim,"Olympias, alone and isolated in Epirus, would still have been aware of Antipaters frame of mind and could be forgiven for wanting the additional comfort these troops and Talents would bring to her."The thought that Olympias wanted the money and troops for herself seem a bit strange. Though it's not unlikely that she hoped to commandeer both, it seems more likely that she was still thinking in terms of Alexander's image and the damage that such treason, if unchecked, might do to it. Being the queen mother, she likely knew that her comfort and wealth were, as long as Alexander lived, assured. Just a thought. later Nicator

Hi Nicator,
I would agree that Olympias' safety would have been inviolate under normal circumstances, but I believe these were not normal circumstances. Consider her strategic situation. She had been removed from Pella (and therefore from Antipater) by Alexander and sent to Epirus. This placed her in a position of greater safety (albeit at the expense of Cleopatra but somebody had to conduct the sacrifices.) The loyalty of Alexanders western Generals is in question here, particularly that of Antipater. If Olympias suspected him of disloyalty (and whom did she not suspect of something) then she would have realized that her son and his army were on the other side of Antipater from her. No matter how fast Alexander could move an army, Antipater would surely be able to march into Epirus and take her hostage more quickly. Unless, that is, she had some way to delay or stop him. She had the Epiriot army but how nice it would be to have 6,000 vetran mercenaries and 5,000 Talents with which to hire more delivered free into her hands. Another thing is her actions upon learning of her sons death. Immediatly she sent for her uncle Arybbas in exile in Athens. He had been king before Philip deposed him in favor of Alexander of Epirus, Olympias' brother. Arybbas had battled Macedonians before and though no match for Philip could likely be counted on to hold Antipater up long enough for 'divine' justice to arrive from the east.

Morning Efsthasios.In the words of Arrian: "Abulites' son Oxarthes, shared the same fate (put to death)" Arr. 7.4.2.
Added to by Plutarch:"He killed Oxarthes, one of the sons of Abulites the starap of Susiana with his own hands, running him through with a Macedonian pikeGǪ" Alex. 68.Pretty straightforward that one. No charge mentioned. I imagine he was a little disinclined to discuss things?One of the points of the post GÇô which you seem to have missed GÇô is that Alexander decided to march on forever (to Ocean) against both the wishes of his men and those with a stronger head for organisation and consolidation. This was the result. Yet, even given the apparent willingness to indulge thoughts of resistance amongst Iranian (oh, all right, Persian) nobles that are indicated by this mess, he's off to Arabia.Antipater put down a revolt prior to Gaugamela. Thrace had now been independent for some time GÇô a couple of years probably. Certainly Seuthes was minting coinage GÇô his coinage GÇô at his capital. Diodorus describes him as "King of the Odrysians" in 323. It is an area that Lysimachus battled for through into the third century. Antipater had shown no interest in it.With the land route to Greece in revolt and the "satrapy' which Eumenes was to inherit in the Babylonian settlement unsubdued (on the Hellespont), the king was to march off again?His father would most certainly have taken the time to personally settle the empire, put in place some workable administration and secure his arse before moving on.

Perhaps that is a good part of the reason Alexander did not? These things are, of course, the purview of lesser beings and shouldn't trifle Alexander?Then again, having to settle affairs and deal with uprisings may not hold half as much interest as conquering new lands because they remain unconquered.Paralus.

G'day Jim.I had in fact left Harpalus out due to the fact that he really is a subject to himself.He and the 5,000 odd talents he took with him to Athens neatly solved a large amount of the problems involved in where to settle the so called "exiles". They settled in the Peleponnese waiting to see where that money may see them gainfully employed. We have evidence for what transpired in Babylon at Alexander's death but precious little about what transpired in Greece. A couple of things are certain: Craterus remained in Cilicia longer than was necessary to attest that the western "preparations" were on track; in Greece, despite a summons a year earlier to come to Babylon and bring reinforcements, neither Antipater nor the reinforcements had shown any inkling of something resembling a movement eastwards.Your information with respect to the letters only adds to the mix. Given that Antipater had yet to obey his King, why would the King set off for Arabia? It could be argued that another could take care of the Antipater question but, that would entail that someone going to Macedonia. If Antipater were disinclined to obey the King, he would certainly have no compunctions disobeying Perdiccas or Craterus.Craterus was demonstrating as much enthusiasm for marching on Macedonia to execute his King's orders as Antipater was in quitting same for the same king.Paralus

Marcus, this was in answer to you Philp's foreign policy post: we appear to have exhausted the availble space for posting!I'd go watch!The core of Borza's criticism is the theme or artistic take on the subject. Essentially this is the provision of a social reason or overlay for the grand imperial adventure that was Alexander's eastern "romp".I too (surpise, suprprise) disagree with that overlay. Even Lane Fox in one of the many docos out at the time describes Alexander's lion hunting as mere practice for what he (L-Fox) considers Alexander's prime motivation in life: hunting and killing men on the battlefield.The last battle was a fix whose effects had already waned; the next conquered people just one more less in the smorgassboard to overcome.Paralus.

Hello Paralus,
I suppose this portion of Alexander's history is interesting, but I must admit, quite depressing. Though he did do a fine job of cross and counterchecking his subordinates before his planned invasion of Arabia, it is obvious on many fronts that he was somewhat out of touch and in trouble. The rise of Alexander with all of his battlefield brilliance is and always has been the fun part for me. His existance and achievements still confounds my ability to comprehend. What a turning point in history...all of it requisite on one man's heroic ideals. These are the things I wish to focus my attentions, these were the great impositions that inspired me to churn out 8800 rhyming lines in his honor. The rest of it...melancholy chitter-chatter, to be taken as such and left as such. later Nicator

"Given that Antipater had yet to obey his King, why would the King set off for Arabia?"This is the heart of the matter Paralus. Arabia bordering the Persian Gulf had once been part of the Persian Empire. Alexander would have at some point wanted to take it; but why then, with Antipater's and Craterus' actions suggestive of undercurrents of treason? Just prior to Hephaestion's death Alexander and the army had marched from Opis to Ecbatana while Craterus had marched from Opis to Tarsus. Harpalus was being held by Athens as leverage in its negotiations over the application of the Exile's decree to the Samian question. Alexander contemplated war with Athens at that point but then when Hephaestion died he withdrew to Babylon and turned his attention to Arabia. What about Athens? What about Antipater? What about Seuthes? What about Arriarathes? I don't think Arabia was a mistake, Alexander was THE quintessential strategist, so, with much of his empire west of the Euphrates in agitation, what could have been the strategic imperative to annex Arabia instead of marching into Anatolia?