pothos.org

...............................μος
...............δε....αρεστα π....
..........αυτου. οσοι δ'αν των
ζηιων ας αν τα ξηι ο δημος μη κατασ-
τησωσι τους εγγυους, φυλασσετω η αρχη
πεδαις δεδεμενους, αν δ' απροδρασι
τις αοτων, τα επιτιμα αποτινειν τους
αρχοντας. των δ' αλλων Χιων μηδενα
εις δικην αγειν επι βαρβαρισμωι μηδε
των παροικων, μηδ Αλκιμαχος διωκετω (?)
.......επειδή διεμαρτυρηθη η μην μη
αοτοματος εξελθειν προς τους βαρβαρους,
ο δε εμος τε φιλος εστι και προθυμος
τωι πληθει τωι υμετερωι υπηρχε τους
μεγ γαρ φεογοντας επειρατο καταγειν
την πολιν υμων απαλλαξαι της ολιγαρχιας
της καταστασης προτερον παρ' υμιν
υπο των βαρβαρων αξιω ουν υμας ανθ'
ων ευ επραξεν υπερ του δημου και
συνειργει εν τωι αγωνι τωι περι υμας,
ακυρουντας α εψηφισθη κατα του
πατρος αοτου, οσι' αφειλεν η πολις
αποδουναι πρωτωι των ηκοντων και
αυτον και τους φιλους τιμαν και
πιστευειν ως οντι φιλοπολει. ταοτα γαρ
ποιουντες χαριεισθετ' εμοι, και
ει τι εμου δεοισθε προθυμοτερον
αν υμιν υπηρετοιην

Translation

.... acceptable.... of him.
Those who do not provide guaranton for the penalties which the
people fix, let the authority guard them bound with fetters. If any of
them runs away, the archontes shall pay the fines,
None of the other Chians shall be brought to justice on a charge of
barbarism, nor any of the resident foreigners
Νeither let Alcimachus prosecute (?) ........, since he has given evidence
that he did not go out voluntarily to the barbarians: he is a friend
of mine and was enthusiastic for the mass of you; for he tried to restore
the exiles and to free your city from the oligrachy which had previously
been established among you by the barbarians. I therefore ask you,
in return for the good that he did on behalf of the people and for his
cooperation in the sturggle concerning you, that the city should invalidate
what was voted against his father, and give back to him first of those who
have come (back from the exile) what it took away, and honour him and
his friends and trust him as a man loyal to the city.
By doing these things you will gratify me, and if you were to request
anything from me I should be more enthusiastic towards you.


Sorry for not placing the stresses and notes in the original text, my keyboard is not built for that. This is another stele that was found 19th in Chios island. East Ionic dialect is the style here. The researchers are not 100% sure about this one. There is a small doupt of this being a royal letter from Alexander to the Chians. I personally believe that the "he is a friend of mine" and the "by doing these things..." (do you remember the letter to Cleomenes?) gives me a strong evidence in favor of this being Alexander speaking. It is also close to the date of the other stele I posted about here.

Alcimachus was the first born of four sons to Agathocles and his wife, perhaps named Arsinoe, who were probably Thessalian. His paternal grandfather may also have been called Alcimachus and one of his younger brothers was Lysimachus, one of the Diadochi .

His father Agathocles was a nobleman of high rank who was a friend of Philip II, shared in Philip II’s councils and became a favorite in the Argead court. Alcimachus and his brothers grew up with the status of Macedonians; he and his brothers enjoyed prominent positions in Alexander’s circle and they were educated at the court at Pella.

Two years after the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC, Alcimachus and Antipater were sent by Philip II to Athens where they were made Proxenoi of Athens . Sometime in the reign of Philip II, Alcimachus may have been granted property in Apollonia and may have had honors bestowed upon him by Philip II.

Later, Alcimachus was put in charge of a small army - a couple of thousand Macedonians and similar number of Greek allied infantry and 200 'Companion' cavalry - [Arrian I.18] empowered by Alexander to ‘liberate’ the cities of Ionia and Aeolis.

"He dispossessed the ruling cliques (oligarchs) and established popular government ( democrats) in their place, allowing every community to enjoy its own laws and customs and discontinue tribute/taxes it had previously paid to the Persians."

This was not because Alexander favoured democracy. It was pragmatism again, because the ousted oligarchies had supported Persia, as at Chios.

When Alcimachus was sent by Alexander to establish democracies in the Ionian and Aeolian cities, Alexander may have voiced some displeasure with Alcimachus’ behavior in handling affairs there, as he is probably the Alcimachus named in the "Second Letter to the Chians" quoted above. After Alexander’s possible displeasure with Alcimachus, he is not mentioned again in the Alexander histories.

Perhaps Alcimachus empowered democrats a little too enthusiastically for Alexander's taste, and the mention in this letter of an unknown oligarch, who is not to be prosecuted for his "medising" on the grounds that he didn't do so voluntarily, is a personal friend of Alexander's, and sympathised with the 'demos' seems to confirm this. One imagines that prosecuting one of Alexander's personal friends was not conducive to career progress !

None of the other Chians who 'barbarised' are to be prosecuted either. This is consistent with Alexander saving the lives of the Chian oligarchs ( by keeping them in Egypt and not sending them back to face "people's courts") and confirms the 'personal ties' I hypothesised earlier.[ see previous thread]

Note too the reference to the giving back of the unknown oligarch's property and that of his father - the problem I referred to earlier regarding exiles and confiscated property.

I would agree that while it is not absolutely certain ( Alcimachus had a son, also called Alcimachus and it is just possible that it is the younger one, at a later date, that is referred to here or even a different Alcimachus entirely), it is highly probable, given the contents of the letter and consistency with other source material, that this letter was from Alexander.....

For further information regarding Alcimachus, see Heckel "Who's who in the age of Alexander the Great".

There is a slight chance that Alcimachos is the Andromachus of Curtius IV 8 x, in which case he disappeared in a puff of smoke at the hands of the Samaritans.

I would agree the chance is slight, even very slight, relying as it does on the similarity of names, and that both were generals, and that Andromacus dies while Alexander is founding Alexandria, around the time Alcimachus disappears from the Alexander histories.

On the other hand, and against this, is the fact that Arrian reports Alcimachus being appointed by Alexander, with a small army, to restore democracies in the western part of Anatolia and the islands off- shore.

Meanwhile, Andromachus was appointed to rule Coele-Syria ( the Syrian lowlands) by Parmenion, its governor, when he moved on with Alexander southward [Curtius IV.5.9] and judging by his fate , burnt to death some time later by the Samaritans, did not have any substantial number of troops with him.

In addition, between these two extremes of Alexander's then empire, Cilicia was ruled by Socrates, and Philotas governed northern Syria, including the area about Tyre. This placing of the two men at physical opposite ends of the empire, I would suggest, makes confusing the two extremely unlikely.

Well, Alkimachos is given his mission while Alexander moves to Miletos Arr I 18 i, parallel to Parmenion accepting the surrender of Magnesia and Tralles. The appointment of Andromachos in Curtius is two years later after the fall of Tyre. Alkimachos' army contained Companions (200) and 2,500 Macedonian infantry, all of these re-joined Alexander before Issos, presumably having completed their mission.

I think it highly suspect that Parmenion is credited with the appointment of Andromachos, Curtius has surely garbled his Greek source and it was Alexander who appointed him to take over mopping up operations from Parmenion. This has no bearing on whether the name is correctly transmitted but, I think, indicates that it has come from a tradition other than Ptolemy (as Arrian has none of it, although cf. The Road to Damascus thread; Curtius does preserve Ptolemy where Arrian does not and sometimes more accurately).

I completely agree that the chance is 'very' slight and based solely upon the considerations you mention (I dithered over putting a 'very' with that slight, myself), however, there are enough variations in the nomenclature of the subsidiary cast to give pause. For my part I find it hard to reconcile the continued favour of Lysimachos with any real fall from favour with regard to his brother.

Agesilaos wrote:

I think it highly suspect that Parmenion is credited with the appointment of Andromachos, Curtius has surely garbled his Greek source and it was Alexander who appointed him to take over mopping up operations from Parmenion.

I don't think Curtius 'garbled' his source. In 332, according to Curtius, Parmenion left him in charge of Coele-Syria (Curtius IV.5.9), apparently as the strategos assigned to Sanballat in Samaria, but on Alexander’s instructions - as Curtius indicates at IV.8.9-10. It was there that he was killed during a local uprising, being burnt alive (Curtius IV.8.9). Alexander acted very swiftly to avenge his death.

He is probably to be identified with the 'Nauarchos' (Admiral) of the same name at the siege of Tyre in 332, where he commanded the Cypriot contingent which blockaded the northern harbor (Arrian II.20.10).

Returning to Alcimachus, there is another inscription that probably refers to him. IG xii.2.1001, an inscription from Ios, honors Lysippus son of Alcimachus and refers to the 'eunoia' (benevolence) of his father toward the state. This may very well refer to the son and grandson of Agathocles.

Alcimachus is usually referred to as brother of Lysimachus, but this is purely by virtue of sharing the same patronymic, so there is an outside chance they were not brothers.

After his restoration of the democracies in Ionia and Aeolia, and Alexander's likely displeasure judging by the two inscriptions, he perhaps was 'retired' or dismissed, or simply not given another important posting by Alexander. However judging by the third inscription I referred to above, he seems to have maintained contact with some at least of the islands whom he seems to have been 'benevolent patron' to.....

Agesilaos wrote:

For my part I find it hard to reconcile the continued favour of Lysimachos with any real fall from favour with regard to his brother.

Perhaps it was the other way around....Alcimachus apparently did not suffer any great severity, despite Alexander's displeasure, precisely because Lysimachus was a favourite...

I tend to think that the admiral Andromachos, of Arrian II 20 x, was a Cypriot appointed by the Kings to command their combined fleet; the Phoenician fleet which deserted Autophradates at this time does not seem to have been placed under a Macedonian admiral and it would surely not only alienate his new royal allies but also jeopardize the fleet as it is hard to believe Macedon had produced a better admiral than the Cypriots with their much longer naval tradition.

This does not preclude Alexander appointing a Cypriot to command in Samaria, of course, but it seems something of a diminution of rank from admiral to satrapal assistant in charge of mopping-up. It could even be that this story from Curtius stems from the Jewish propagandist tradition which had Alexander visiting Jerusalem and submitting to the High Priest, there is no trace of an attack on Samaria in the so-called 'Good' tradition.

The second inscription makes me think it more likely that Alkimachos was, indeed, the son of a different Agathokles, Lysippos does not seem to be a name in Lysimachos' family, we have only a minute sample and there were no rules as to what names could be given only general patterns. So we have Lysimachos the father of Agathokles the father of Alkimachos (allegedly), Lysimachos (whom one would expect to be the eldest son taking his grandfather's name, a common pattern), Autodikos (or Autolykos) and Philip; Lysimachos in turn had Agathokles, Ptolemy I Epigone, Lysimachos, Philip and a bastard, Alexander. An inscription does record Autodikos' marriage to a certain Adeia and three children resulting sadly unnamed (or names not preserved).

Nothing conclusive, then, as per usual, in the end it depends on ones approach to prosopography, one that increases the number of individuals or increases the links between fewer subjects.

As to Alkimachos/Andromachos I would say it is still an open question, though given the possible fraudulence of Curtius' report, perhaps a largely rhetorical one