Memnon from Rhodos

[Polyxena]

Hi again,I read somewhere that the Rhodian mercenary captain Memnon died in a similar circumstances as Alexander. Can we make any connection here?Regards,

[yiannis]

Similar in the sense that he got unexpectedly ill and died soon after, yes.
He was also Darious' best hope for organizing of a succesfull defence if Memnon's plans of transferring the war to Greece were successfull..

[Polyxena]

Hi Yiannis,Thanks for your reply. I thought similar in the sense of the symptoms and the lenght of his illness.Yes, he was Darious' best hope for defending his empire and it's also strange how he suddenly got ill and died.Regards, Poliksena

[ScottOden]

Hi All,All we really know of Memnon's death is that he grew ill and died during the siege of Mytilene, on the island of Lesbos (I believe). It's not outside the realm of possibility that Memnon was poisoned by a coalition of Persian satraps who feared his rise to power, but there is no evidence of it. There's a good article in the American
Journal of Philology, 1989 edition, written by W. McCoy called "Memnon of Rhodes at the Granicus" that goes into some detail about the fears the Persians had concerning Memnon possibly following in his brother's footsteps as supreme military commander of the west. McCoy goes so far as to theorize that Memnon's placement in the front line cavalry during the battle at Granicus river was an attempt to kill him by Arsames, the satrap who assumed control of Artabazus' lands in Hellespontine Phrygia and commander of the Persian forces during that battle (he led the drive to veto Memnon's scorched earth idea). It's a shame that no Persian sources have survived to our time. I, for one, would love to know more about the political shenanigans of the satraps.

[marcus]

Hi Poli,I don't think it's at all strange that Memnon got ill and died - that sort of thing happens :-)It was extremely fortuitous that he died when he did, and it wouldn't be impossible to surmise that he might have been poisoned. But, just as in Alexander's case, I think we should be *very* careful about 'conspiracy theory syndrome'.All the bestMarcus

[Dr. Pal]

Dear Poli,Congratulations for raising a point in which deeply interests me. I agree with Scott that Memnon could have been poisoned by a coalition of Persian satraps but I am now working on a paper in which I have pinpointed Orontobates the younger (whom I have identified with Chandragupta) as the conspirator. I suspect that more than Arsames it was he who wanted to eliminate Memnon. In my view Orontobates/Chandragupta/Sasigupta/Moeris/Tiridates together with Perdiccas, Atropates, Eumenes and Seleucus were behind AlexanderGÇÖs poisoning(http://www.geocities.com/ranajitda). That the symptoms are the same may be due to the fact that the poison was also the same. If you read the Indian texts Chandragupta was aided by the fiendish Bagoas. No one knew poison better than Bagoas who poisoned more than a hundred princes and others. This cannot have been the work of Aristotle. Ptolemy certainly knew everything but he decided to hide the truth. My theory is that the name Medios has been deliberately linked with Larissa. Chandragupta/Sasigupta was probably in control of Media. You have to read ToynbeeGÇÖs excellent account(vol. vii) on the AchaemenidGÇÖs to realise that there a Media in the Gulf area which was linked to Orontobates as Arrian reported. Regards,Dr. Pal

[Tre]

I agree with Marcus. When people became seriously ill in those times, they usually died. There was no way to control fever or combat infection, and while the treatment of wounds was reasonably sound, the practice of medicine for illness was not.As moderns, we tend to look upon the past and compare it to the present - but young people died then far more frequently than now, and it should not at all be considered 'strange' that people who were not old, died of sickness and if they didn't they were often permanently damaged by the effects of uncontrollable fever, for instance Arrhidaeus.Regards,Tre

[susan]

Also, they were travelling to remote lands with diseases to which they had no natural immunity - they hadn't had exposure to them since childhood. This is one of the reasons why the Asian & Indian campaigns were so hard.Susan

[Kit]

Dr Pal,I thought the Bagoas to which you refer was killed by Darius III upon his ascension to the throne, precisely because he was such an accomplished poisoner of princes!?In this event it would have been extremely difficult for your 'suspects'to have made contact with him?Kit

[Dr. Pal]

Dear Kit,You are right. If DiodorusGÇÖ account of BagoasGÇÖ death is correct it would have been extremely difficult for my GÇÿsuspectsGÇÖ to contact him. But the question is was Diodorus right? This is the question Lane Fox also poses. The Past is indeed a foreign land. Diodorus gives the Greek view and it is just possible that the Greeks did not know the full story. A man who had poisoned so many probably took precautions against the eventuality of being forced to drink his own cup. In the Indian texts Bagoas makes Chandragupta drink small doses of poison daily to get immunity. Doubtlessly he took the same precaution himself. Bagoas may just have feigned death and escaped. Unfortunately only one Indian text links Bagoas with ChandraguptaGÇÖs rise to the throne and this makes my case weaker. In any case if Orontobates was close to Bagoas he could just have utilised the latterGÇÖs know how. In the Indian drama Mudrarakshasa also a man dies after being forced to drink his own cup.In the Indian accounts Chandragupta defeats his adversaries with the help of mercenaries. This may be the reason why it was so important for him to eliminate Memnon who like his elder brother was the leader of the Greek mercenaries. Incidentally the name Rhadhagupta appears often in connection with the rise of Asoka who in my view was a grandson of Orontobates/Moeris/Sasigupta. Was he a Rhodian? This appears bizzare at first sight.Regards,Dr. Pal

[Polyxena]

Dear Dr. Pal,I read your text named "Sasigupta and the poisoning of Alexander" where you give a short reinterpretation of some old Indian documents that offers very deep and interesting insights into many aspects of Alexander's life and ancient history of the Orient. Believe it or not, that was the reason why I've raised this question about the similarities between Alexander's and Memnon's death.Best regards, Poliksena

[Polyxena]

Hi again,I would like to say sth in addition to my previous message. You refer that Orontobates/Chandragupta/Sasigupta/Moeris/Tiridates together with Perdiccas, Atropates, Eumenes and Seleucus were behind AlexanderGÇÖs poisoning. I also read (other sources) that Eumenes councelled Alexander to poison Memnon, but Alexander rejected his advice because he has never wanted "to steal the victory". Soon after this conversation Memnon fell ill and died in a similar circumstances as Alexander died later.My own opinion is that there could be some connection. Regards, Poliksena

[Dr. Pal]

Dear Poli,Thanks. I wish to point out that Sasigupta's revolt (or shall I say about turn) coincides with the report of the presence of thousands of mercenaries in Bactria. Another secret I want to share with the forum members is that after the departure of Harpalus the treasury was entrusted to a Rhodian whose name I cannot recall now. My guess is that he may be Viradhagupta the agent of Rakshasa or Oxyartes in the Mudrarakshasa. You spell the name carefully as Rhodos not the usual Rhodes and the pronunciation in Sanskrit is Viradhogupta. He may be the same as Radhogupta, prime minister of Bindusara, son of Chandragupta. Intriguing, isnt it?Regards,Dr. Pal

[Polyxena]

Dear Dr. Pal,Yes, I must admit it's very intriguing issue. But, I would like to ask you sth:First, was Sasigupta (or Moeris), the Indian prince at ATG's court who was also one of his satraps and at war with the tribe of Assacenes the same person with the king Candragupta Maurya (the founder of the Mauryan dynasty that had ruled Magadha between 324-301 BC)? I'm asking this because Sasigupta was the root of many problems in the interpretation of the Mauryan art and that's why he was against Alexander, and on the side of the Zoroastrians. So, if we know that Sasigupta was against the Buddhism and the Mauryan art (the early Buddhist art in India) and Chandragupta Maurya was the founder of this religion and art who became a ruler with the aid of Kautilya (Canakya) a Brahmin minister... than my question is are they really the same person? Second, I'm really interested about the origins of Priam, the king of Troy, because I found out that his titles were Priapatris or Assak (is there any connection with the tribe of Assacenes). Best regards, Poliksena

[susan]

Hi PoliksenaI don't think that they are the same - Chandragupta was a young man when Alexander went to India, too young to have been a satrap. However, I think that it is is possible that he was related to the Sisicottus who was left in charge of Aornos after Alexander captured it. Possibly he was Sisicottus'son, or nephew. As I think Dr Pal has mentioned, the words sisi==chandra==moon.There's a lot of work to be done on this.Susan