¹ Griffith, G. T., JHS lxxxiii (1963) 74Google Scholar.

² Droysen, J. G., Geschichte des Hellenismus i ² (Gotha 1877) 2.83Google Scholar f. = i³ (Basel 1952) 307; i² 2.241 f. = i³ 404.

³ For a bibliographical survey see Seibert, J., Alexander der Grosse (Darmstadt 1972) 186–92Google Scholar. The references which are definitive for German scholarship are Kaerst, J., Geschichte des Hellenismus i ³ (Berlin/Leipzig 1927) 471Google Scholar; Wilcken, U., Alexander the Great, ed. Borza, E. N. (New York 1967) 248Google Scholar f.; Schachermeyr, F., Alexander der Grosse: Das Problem seiner Persönlichkeit und seins Wirkens (SÖAW Wien cclxxxv: 1973) 355Google Scholar, 472, 479–83 (exposition unchanged from the first edn: Graz 1949). For recent statement of orthodoxy see Altheim, F.–Stiehl, R., Geschichte Mittelasiens in Altertum (Berlin 1970) 212CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff., esp. 217; Stier, H. E., Welteroberung und Weltfriede im Wirken Al. d. Gr. (Rhein.-Westfäl. Akad. Wiss. Vorträge G 187: 1972) 38–41Google Scholar. For the diffusion of the idea outside its German context see Radet, G., Alexandre le Grand (Paris 1931) 342 f.Google Scholar; Tarn, W. W., Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1948) i 111, 137 f.Google Scholar; Hamilton, J. R., Alexander the Great (London 1973) 105Google Scholar, 163.

⁴ Op. cit. (n. 3) ii 399–449 (the definitive statement). Tarn separated the two idea of brotherhood and fusion, but he used precisely the same evidence to argue for universal brotherhood that others had used to support the policy of fusion. For the counter-arguments, which are conclusive, see Badian, E., ‘Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind’, Historia vii (1958) 425–44Google Scholar with Merlan, P., CPh xlv (1950) 161–6Google Scholar.

⁵ Berve, H., ‘Die Verschmelzungspolitik Alexanders des Grossen’, Klio xxxi (1938) 135–68Google Scholar. Berve took his view to extreme lengths, even arguing that the concubines in Alexander's army train were exclusively Iranian (158 f.).

⁶ Cf. Berve (n. 5) 136 for the full definition.

⁷ Hampl, F., ‘Alexander der Grosse und die Beurteilung geschichtlicher Persönlichkeiten’, La Nouvelle Clio vi (1954) 115–23Google Scholar; cf. Studies presented to D. M. Robinson ii (Washington 1953) 319 f. For some pragmatic recent views which I would largely endorse, see Badian, E., Studies in Greek & Roman History (Oxford 1964) 201Google Scholar; Green, P., Alexander of Macedon (1974) 446Google Scholar.

⁸ Arr. vii 11.8–9. For the grammatical structure see the discussion of Badian (n. 4) 430 f.

⁹ For the Macedonian resentment see Arr. vii 6.1–5; 8.2. For the crushing of the mutiny see Arr. vii 11.1–4; Curt, x 3.5–6; Diod. xvii 109.3; Plut., Al. 71.4Google Scholar; Justin xii 12.1–6.

¹⁰ Cf. Arr. iii 21.5: καὶ διασῴζεινἐς τὸ κοινὸν τὴν ἀρχήν (the regicides with Bessus).

¹¹ For examples of ἀρχή as a synonym of satrapy see Arr. i 17.7, 23.8; vi 29.1. In Arrian ἀρχή implies rule over subjects (cf. iv 20.3 where the Persian empire is described as Περσῶν τε καὶ Μήδων τὴν ἀρχήν rule over Persians and Medes). I cannot see how the Opis prayer can imply anything other than that the Persians and Macedonians were to rule jointly over subject peoples. The distinctions hitherto made between ἀρχή as ‘rule’ and ἀρχή as ‘realm’ are meaningless: Tarn (n. 3) ii 443 f.; Wüst, F., Historia ii (1953) 429Google Scholar; cf. Badian (n. 4) 431.

¹² Arrian makes it clear that the participants at the feast were clearly divided by their national origins. Far from intermingling the Persians and Macedonians were separated from each other and the Macedonians alone were in the king's entourage ἀμφ᾿ αὐτὸν μὲν Μακεδόνων, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐφρξῆς τούτων Περσῶν) Cf. Badian (n. 4) 429 f.

¹³ Diod. xviii 4.4: ὅπως τὰς μεγίστας ἡπείρους . . .εἰς κοινὴν ὁμόνοιαν καὶ συγγενικὴν φιλίαν καταστήσῃ

¹⁴ So Badian, , HSCP lxxii (1968) 194–5Google Scholar Even if the proposals did contain statements of intent, those statements were transmitted by Perdiccas and cannot be directly attributed to Alexander himself. Cf. Schachermeyr, , Alexander in Babylon (SÖAW Wien cclxviii. 3: 1970) 192: ‘natürlich hat Perdikkas am Heer nicht ganz Schriftsätze vorgelesen, sondern das meiste einfach paraphrasiert’Google Scholar.

¹⁵ At xvii 110.2 he refers to the mixed phalanx of Persians and Macedonians as κεκραμένην καὶ ἁρμόζουσαν τῇ ἰδίᾳ προαιρέσει but there is no other reference to any deliberate policy of fusion.

¹⁶ Cf. Schachermeyr, , JÖAI xli (1954) 120–3Google Scholar; Badian (n. 14) 183 ff., both conclusive against Tarn (n. 3) ii 380.

¹⁷ Cf. Jacoby, F., RE viii 1542Google Scholar f.; Schachermeyr (n. 14) 106 f.

¹⁸ Cf. Andreotti, R., Saeculum viii (1957) 134Google Scholar, arguing that Hieronymus may have had a pacifist ideology after his experience of the devastation wrought by the Successors (but cf. Schachermeyr [n. 14] 194 n. 188). If so, he may have placed a romantic interpretation upon Alexander's projected colonisation in order to preach a sermon to his own generation.

¹⁹ Cf. Badian (n. 14) 198 f., 203 f. Schachermeyr (n. 14) 193 f. places too much faith in the incorruptibility of Eumenes and takes it for granted that Hieronymus both had inside information and revealed nothing but the truth. Perdiccas read the hypomnemata, but he acted on a group decision and, if there were forgeries, Eumenes would have been privy to them and acquiesced.

²⁰ Strabo i 4.9 (66).

²¹ Plut. de Al. for. i 6 (329a–c). The attribution to Eratosthenes began with Schwartz, E., RhM xl (1885) 252–4Google Scholar: briefly and dogmatically stated but subsequently accepted as dogma (cf. Tarn (n. 3) ii 437).

²² Badian (n. 4) 434–40; Hamilton, J. R., Plutarch Alexander (Oxford 1969)Google Scholar xxix–xxxiii. See now Brunt, P. A., Athenaeum lv (1977) 45–7Google Scholar.

²³ de Al. for. i 8 (330a) = FGrH 241 F 30.

²⁴ The thesis to be proved is expounded at i 4 (328b), and it is regularly pointed by contrasts between philosophical principle and Alexander's actions in practice (328c–e, 329a–b, 330c).

²⁵ Strabo xv 1.64 (715) = FGrH 134 F 17; cf. Hamilton (n. 22) xxxi.

²⁶ For the characterisation of Alexander see Ael. Arist. xxvi εἰς ῾ Ρώμην 24–7. By contrast under Rome there is no distinction of Europe and Asia (60), ἀλλὰ καθέστηκε κουνὴ τῆς γῆς δημοκρατία ὑφ᾿ ἐνὶ τῷ ἀρίστῳ ἀρχοντι καὶ κοσμητῇ and there has developed a single harmonious union: καὶ γέγονε μία ἁρμονία πολιτείας ἅπαντας συγκεκλῃκυῖα (66).

²⁷ One may compare the orations of Dio of Prusa. In the first Alexander appears briefly as the type of an immoderate ruler, in the second he is the defender and emulator of an idealised Homeric kingship, and in the fourth he is presented as the youthful interlocutor of Diogenes, basically sound but in need of Cynic deflation. See Heuss, A., Antike und Abendland iv (1954) 92Google Scholar f.

²⁸ Curt, x 3. 12–14: cf. 14, ‘omnia eundem ducunt colorem. Nec Persis Macedonum morem adumbrare nec Macedonibus Persas imitari decorum. Eiusdem iuris esse debent qui sub eodem victuri sunt’ (the continuation is lost in a lacuna).

²⁹ Diod. xvii 77.4–7; Curt. vi 6.1–10; Justin xii 3.8–12; Metz Epitome 1–2. Cf. Plut., Al. 45.1–4Google Scholar; Arr. iv 7.4–5. For full discussion see Ritter, H.-H., Diadem und Königsherrschaft (Vestigia vii: 1965) 31–55Google Scholar, superseding Berve (n. 5) 148–52.

³⁰ Arrian iv 7.4 (and the derivative Itinerarium 88) claim that Alexander, adopted the upright tiara (kitaris) of the Persian king. Berve (n. 5) 148–50Google Scholar therefore argued that Alexander alternated full Persian dress with a more conservative mixed costume, and scholars have been reluctant to reject Arrian's statement. But there is no corroboration (apart from the passing remark of Lucian, , Dial. Mort. 14.4)Google Scholar, and it conflicts with the explicit statements of the other sources. In fact Arrian's report of the Persian costume is a parenthesis, a further example of Alexander's barbarism tacked onto the punishment of Bessus, and Arrian may have added it from his own memory—in which case he could easily have made a slip (cf. iii 22.4 where he refers casually to the battle of ‘Arbela’ despite his fulminations at vi 11.4). Certainly his passing comment cannot stand against the rest of the tradition (so Ritter [n. 29] 47).

³¹ Arr. iv 7.4; cf. vii 29.4.

³² Plut., Al. 45.1Google Scholar; cf. de Al. for. i 8 (330a).

³³ The Achaemenid courtiers are regularly termed φοινικισταί or purpurati; cf. Xen., Anab. i 2.20Google Scholar; 5.7–8; Curt. iii 2.10; 8.15; 13.13 f. Reinhold, M., Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity (Coll. Latomus cxvi: 1970) 18–20Google Scholar.

³⁴ The lesson was underlined when Alexander selected as his chiliarch or Grand Vizier (Persian hazarapatis) his closest friend, Hephaestion: Berve, , Das Alexanderreich (Munich 1926) ii 173 no. 357Google Scholar; Schachermeyr (n. 14) 31–7. The date of this appointment is not known, but it presumably followed his elevation to the command of the Companion cavalry in late 330 (Arr. iii 27.4), some time after Alexander first introduced Persian court ceremonial.

³⁵ Plut., Al. 45.1Google Scholar; cf. Diod. 77.4; Curt, vi 6.1, etc.

³⁶ Arrian places it in his narrative of 329/8, but the context is a timeless digression (above n. 30) and there is no basis for chronological arguments: cf. Ritter (n. 29) 47–9.

³⁷ Arr. ii 14.8–9; Curt. iv 1. 1–14; Plut. Al. 34.1 (cf. FGrH 532 F 1. C 38); Plut., Al. 37.7, 56.2Google Scholar; de Al. for. 329d; Diod. 66.3; Curt. v 2.13. Altheim (n. 3) 195–202 is totally unconvincing when he argues that Alexander had no pretentions to be king of Asia before the death of Darius.

³⁸ The arguments of Ritter (n. 29) 49 ff.

³⁹ Arr. iii 25.3; cf. Curt. vi 6.12–13; Metz Epit. 3. For the royal monopoly of the upright tiara see Ar. Birds 487 with scholia; Xen., Anab. ii 5.23Google Scholar; Plut., Artox. 26.4Google Scholar and, in general, Ritter (n. 29) 6 ff.

⁴⁰ Arr. iii 21.5, 30.4; cf. Diod. 74.1.

⁴¹ Arr. iii 19.5–6; Plut., Al. 42.5Google Scholar; Diod. 74.3–4; Curt. vi 2.17; Justin xii 1.1. Cf. Bosworth, , CQ xxvi (1976) 132–6Google Scholar for the chronology.

⁴² Arr. iii 19.7–8. For the reunification in Arachosia sec Curt. vii 3.4. Milns, R. D., GRBS vii (1966) 165Google Scholar n. 34 (so Fox, R. Lane, Alexander the Great [London 1973] 532Google Scholar) has argued that the whole army was united in Parthia, but the argument rests on a misinterpretation of Arr. iii 25.4. The forces there said to be united are patently the several army columns used separately during the Elburz campaign (cf. iii 22.2, 24,1). It is clear that even the cavalry from the Median contingent only caught up when Alexander was on his way to Bactra (iii 25.3); the infantry must have followed at a considerable interval.

⁴³ Cf. Arr. iii 19.7. The mercenaries and Thracians commissioned to Parmenion were earmarked for the abortive Cadusian expedition, but they clearly remained as the garrison of Media. Parmenion's lieutenants and murderers are known to have held commands over mercenary troops and Thracians: cf. Berve (n. 34) nos 8, 422, 508, 712.

⁴⁴ Arr. iii 25.5–7; Diod. 78.1–4; Curt. vi 6.20–34. The vulgate tradition is fuller and more credible than Arrian.

⁴⁵ Arr. iii 28.2–3; Diod. 81.3; Curt. vii 3.2 (renewed revolt when Alexander was in Ariaspian territory: Jan. 329); Diod. 83.4–6; Curt. vii 4.32 ff. (revolt crushed before Alexander reached Bactra: summer 329).

⁴⁶ Arr. iv 7.1: Brazanes and his fellow rebels were captured by Phrataphcrnes and conveyed to Bactra/Zariaspa during the winter of 329/8. At the same time Arsaces, Alexander's second satrap of Areia, was arrested for connivance in Satibarzanes' revolt: ἐθελοκακεῖν at iii 29.5 implies dereliction of duty (cf. iv 18.3; Tact. 12.11—the word is Herodotean) rather than actual rebellion (Berve [n. 34] nos 146, 179). There was trouble in the central satrapies apparently as late as 328/7, when Alexander felt it necessary to dismiss his satraps in Drangiana and Tapuria (Arr. iv. 18.3; Curt. viii 3.17; cf. x 1.39). The details and chronology of these dismissals are obscure, but the fact is certain.

⁴⁷ Arr. ii 14.7 (at this stage the only Persian noble known to have been with Alexander was Mithrines: Berve [n. 34] no. 524).

⁴⁸ Diod. 77.7; Curt. vi 6.9–12; Justin xii 4.1; cf. Arr. vii 6.2, 8.2.

⁴⁹ Cf. Plut., Al. 47–7–12Google Scholar; de Al. for. ii 4 (337a).

⁵⁰ Plut., Demetr. 14.2Google Scholar: διἀ τὸ προσυνῳκηκέναι Κρατέρῳ τῷ πλείστην εὔνοιαν αὑτοῦ παρὰ Μακεδόσι τῶν ᾿Αλεξάνδρου διαδόχων ἀπολιπόντι

⁵¹ Cf. Plut., Eum. 6–7Google Scholar; Nepos, Eunt. 3.4–5Google Scholar; Arr. Succ. F 1.27 (Roos) (cf. F 19 = Suda s.v. Κράτϵρος, contrasting Craterus' popularity with the unpopularity of Antipater).

⁵² Plut., Eum. 6.3Google Scholar. This explicit statement has been queried (cf. Berve [n. 34] ii 226; Hamilton [n. 22] 131), mainly on the strength of Alexander's farewell at Opis τὸν πιστότατόν τε αὐτῷ καὶ ὄντινα ἴσον τῇ ἑαυτοῦ κεφαλῇ ἄγει) But the king had given an equally moving (and permanent) farewell to Coenus shortly after his determined opposition at the Hyphasis (Arr. vi 2.1; Curt. ix 3.20; cf. Badian, , JHS lxxxi [1961] 25Google Scholar), and in the case of Cratcus the public statement of confidence and friendship does not exclude there having been bitter wrangles in private. Curtius describes Craterus as regi carus in paucis (vi 8.2), but the comment comes in the context of Philotas' trial, before there can have been concerted opposition to Alexander's Medism.

⁵³ See the detailed exposition of Berve (n. 34) ii 222–4 (no. 446).

⁵⁴ Cf. Arr. iv 11.6: the context is Callisthenes' speech against proskynesis, which presumably owes much to Arrian's own shaping, but the sentiment is convincing enough.

⁵⁵ Curt. vi 2.15 ff.; Diod. 74.3; Justin xii 3.2–4. The episode is omitted by Arrian, probably because his sources were reluctant to stress the discontent in the army.

⁵⁶ Diod. 77.7: τούτοις μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἐθισμοῖς ᾿Αλέξανδρος σπανίως ἐχρῆτο, τοῖς δὲ προϋπάρχουσι κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐνδιέτριβε

⁵⁷ Plut., Al. 51.2Google Scholar; cf. 71.3.

⁵⁸ Curt. viii 7.12: Persarum te vestis et disciplina delectat: patrios mores exosus es. Cf. viii 8.10–13.

⁵⁹ Polyaen. iv 3.24.

⁶⁰ FGrH 126 F 5 (Athen, xii 537e–f). His description of the mixed dress coheres with the other evidence, particularly that of Eratosthenes (nn. 23, 29), and Aristobulus seems to confirm that Alexander wore the kausia with the diadem as his day-to-day dress (Arr. vii 22.2 = FGrH 139 F 55). Cf. Ritter (n. 29) 57–8, accepting the material from Ephippus despite his misgivings about the value of the source.

⁶¹ Athen. xii 539d = FGrH 81 F 41; Ael. VH ix 3; Polyaen. iv 3.24.

⁶² FGrH 125 F 4: 100 couches and 20 cubit pillars covered with gold and silver leaf.

⁶³ ἐπὶ τούτοις πεντακόσιοι Σούσιοι πορφυροσχήμονες This group of 500 is also mentioned by Athenaeus, but Polyaenus alone says that they came from Susa.

⁶⁴ Cf. Diod. 57.2; Curt. iv 13.27 with Arr. iii 11.9. According to Justin xii 7.5 the name originated in 327 when Alexander began his march into India and had his men's shields silvered for the occasion—and Harpalus allegedly sent 25,000 items of equipment chased with silver and gold (Curt. ix 3.21). The argyraspides also appear in the list of units named at the Opis mutiny in the place of the hypaspists (Arr. vii 11.3). This evidence cannot be dismissed as fantasy and anachronism (pace Lock, R. D., Historia xxvi [1977] 373–8)Google Scholar. After the Indian campaign the hypaspists could also be known as argyraspides. The fact that the famous corps of Teutamus and Antigenes is called solely argyraspides, never hypaspists, is easy to explain. After Alexander's death the Successors set up their own bodyguards of hypaspists (Polyaen. iv 6.8; Diod. xix 28.1; Polyaen. iv 9.3) and hypaspist was no longer an exclusive title. Accordingly the veterans of Alexander used their second title argyraspides to distinguish themselves from the hypaspists of the other generals, who had not served under Alexander.

⁶⁵ Diod. xix 22.2.

⁶⁶ Diod. 110.1 f. (after the mutiny); Justin xii 12.4 (during). Both sources conflate the expansion of the guard with the formation of a mixed phalanx, which only occurred in mid 323 (below, p. 18). The common source (Cleitarchus) may well have given a summary of Alexander's various experiments with mixed infantry forces and tacked them onto the report of the great mutiny. Arr. vii 29.4 speaks in the most general terms of the admixture of μηλοφόροι into the Macedonian ranks, corroborating the fact but giving no indication of chronology.

⁶⁷ Diod. xviii 27.1: περὶ τὸν βασιλέα μία μὲν ὑπῆρχε μηλοφόρων

⁶⁸ Cf. Hamilton, J. R., CQ iii (1953) 156Google Scholar f.; Schachermeyr (n. 3) 514 f.

⁶⁹ Curt. ix 10.21, 29 (Carmania); Arr. vii 4.1; Plut. Al. 68.7 (Susiana/Paraetacene). See further Badian (n. 52) 17; Bosworth, , CQ xxi (1971) 124Google Scholar; Schachermeyr (n. 3) 477 f.

⁷⁰ Arr. vi 30.1–2; Curt. x 1.24 ff. For Orxines' lineage see Curt. iv 12.8. Curtius states that he had the overall command of the Persians at Gaugamela; Arrian (iii 8.5) gives him the command of the forces of the Red Sea, but there is almost certainly a lacuna in his text—all reference to the Persian national contingent is omitted.

⁷¹ Arr. vi 27.3; 29.3. Curtius ix 10.19 mentions two rebels, Ozines and Zariaspes, who were arrested by Craterus; the former at least seems identical with Arrian's Ordanes: Droysen (n. 2) i² 2.199 n. 1; but cf. Berve (n. 34) no. 579.

⁷² Plut., Al. 68.3Google Scholar: καὶ ὅλως διέδραμε σάλος ἁπάντων καὶ νεωτερισμός cf. Curt. x 1.7.

⁷³ Note the wrangle with Antipater and Parmenion in 335 (Diod. 16.2); the story is circumstantial and there is no reason to doubt it.

⁷⁴ Diod. 37.6; Curt. iii 12.24 f.; cf. Diod. 38.1; 67.1; Curt. v 2.18 ff.; Arr. ii 12.5.

⁷⁵ Plut., Al. 21.7Google Scholar; Eum. 1.7; Diod. xx 20.1; 28.1; Justin xi 10.2 f.; xii 15.9; Tarn's attempt to disprove the existence of the captive Barsine and her son Heracles (ii 330–7) is now a mere historical curiosity; cf. Schachermeyr (n. 14) 22 n. 32a; Brunt, P. A., RFIC ciii (1975) 22–34Google Scholar; Errington, R. M., JHS xc (1970) 74Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Arrian iv 18.4 says that the family of Oxyartes was captured on the rock of Sogdiana in spring 327. Curtius says nothing about Oxyartes and his family in the context of the Sogdian rock, whose capture he dates to spring 328 (vii 11.1). Rhoxane first appears in a banquet given by ‘Cohortandus’ in spring 327 (viii 4.21–30). That is the order of events in the index of Diodorus, (the narrative proper is lost) and the Metz Epitome (15–18, 28–31)Google Scholar. Strabo xi 11.4 (517) claims that Alexander met Rhoxane not on the rock of Sogdiana but on the rock of Sismithres, the next to be captured. The source conflict is obstinate and can only be settled by careful analysis of all sources in context, with particular emphasis on chronology. Fortunately all sources place the actual marriage immediately before the march on India.

⁷⁷ Curt. viii 4.25; cf. Plut., Al. 47.7Google Scholar with Hamilton (n. 22) 129 f.

⁷⁸ Arr. iv 2.4: οὕτως ἐξ ᾿ Αλεξάνδρου προστεταγμένον; 3.1; Curt. vii 6.16.

⁷⁹ Curt. vii 11.28 (Metz Epit. 18 has a variant); the story is omitted by Arrian but not contradicted (cf. iv 19.4).

⁸⁰ Diod. xvii index κγ´ (p. 3 Budé; 110 Loeb): ὡς ῾ Αλέξανδρος ἀποστάντας τοὺς Σογδιανοὺς κατεπολέμησε καὶ κατέσφαξεν αύτῶν πλείους τῶν δώδεκα μυριάδων

⁸¹ Cf. Arr. iv 4.1. At Alexandria in Caucaso there were 7,000 locals to 3,000 Hellenic troops (Diod. 83.2; Curt. vii 3.23). There is no indication that the number of settlers or the racial proportion was consistent throughout Alexander's foundations.

⁸² Curt. vii 6.27; Justin xii 5.12 f. Cf. Briant, P., Klio lx (1978) 74–7Google Scholar.

⁸³ So Berve (n. 34) i 299. The excavations at Aï Khanoum are illustrating with ever increasing fullness the stubbornly Hellenic nature of that foundation. Cf. Seibert (n. 3) for bibliography, to which add SirWheeler, M., Flames over Persepolis (London 1968) 75 ff.Google Scholar and the successive reports by Bernard, P. in CRAI 1974–1976Google Scholar. Note particularly the new discoveries relating to the theatre and theatrical performances: CRAI 1976, 307–22.

⁸⁴ Curt. vii 11.29: multitudo deditorum incolis novarum urbium cum pecunia capta dono data est.

⁸⁵ Arr. iii 29.1 (Aornus); Metz Epit. 7–8; Arr. iv 5.2 (Maracanda), 16.4–5; Curt. viii 1.3 (Attinas, phrurarch of an unknown fortress).

⁸⁶ Berve (n. 34) no. 60. He was appointed satrap either in winter 328/7 (Arr. iv 17.3) or in summer 328 (Curt. viii 2.14).

⁸⁷ For Sisimithres see Curt. viii 2.32; 4.20; Metz Epit. 19; for Chorienes Metz Epit. 28; Curt. viii 4.21 (Aide's emendation Oxyartes for ‘Cohortandus’ is unacceptable). Arrian (iv 21.9) conflates the two figures.

⁸⁸ For the story of Pixodarus see Plut. Al. 10.1–5; cf. Badian, Phoenix xvii (1963) 244CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff. with Hamilton (n. 22) 24 ff. For the outcome of the episode see Arr. i 23.8; Strabo xiv 2.17 (657).

⁸⁹ Plut., Al. 22.7Google Scholar; Arr i 23.8. For the eastern tradition of descent through the female line see Gelzer, H., RhM xxxv (1880) 515–17Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Metz Epit. 31; Diod. xvii index λ´:τῶν φίλων πολλοὺς ἔπεισε γῆμαι

⁹¹ Arr. vii 4.6 (cf. Plut., Al. 70.3Google Scholar; de Al. for. 7 [329d–e]; Diod. 107.6; Justin xii 10.10; Chares, FGrH 125Google Scholar F 4). The Persian ritual was what irked the Macedonian rank and file (vii 6.2); the marriage to Rhoxane had been celebrated in Macedonian mode according to Curtius (vii 4.27), and there is no reason to dispute his statement (cf. Renard, M. and Servais, J., Ant. Class. xxiv [1955] 29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

⁹² Arr. vii 4.8; Plut., Al. 70.3Google Scholar. See further p. 18 below.

⁹³ Plut. 329e: κοινωνίαν συνιοῦσι τοῖς μεγίστοις καὶ δυνατωτάτοις γένεσι cf. Curt. x 3.11–14.

⁹⁴ Cf. Hampl (n. 7) 119.

⁹⁵ Artabazus (Berve [n. 34] no. 152) had married a sister of Mentor and Memnon of Rhodes but that marriage had taken place by 362: Dem. xxiii 154, 157; cf. Brunt, , RFIC ciii (1975) 25Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Arr. vii 4.5–7. For the role of Spitamenes see iii 28.10, 29.6; iv 3.6 ff.; 17.7. Full references in Berve (n. 34) ii 359–61 (no. 717).

⁹⁷ Arr. vi 30.2 f.; vii 6.3, 23.3.

⁹⁸ Arr. iii 6.6 (Laomedon); Diod. xix 23.1–3; Polyaen. iv 8.3 (Eumenes). Note, however, the use of an Iranian interpreter in Sogdiana (Arr. iv 3.7).

⁹⁹ Diod. xix 14.5: φασὶ καὶ τὸν ᾿Αλέξανδρον αὐτῷ μόνῳ Μακεδόνων συγχωρῆσαι Περσικὴν φορεῖν στολήν χαρίζεσθαι βουλόμενον τοῖς Πέρσαις καὶ διὰ τούτου νομίζοντα κατὰ πάνθ᾿ ἔξειν τὸ ἔθνος ὑπήκοον

¹⁰⁰ Arrian states that one of Peucestas' qualifications to govern Persis was his general sympathy with the barbarian life-style (τῷ βαρβαρικῷ τρόπῳ τῆς διαίτης: vi 30.2). This does not imply that he had already adopted Persian dress. Leonnatus, for instance, is said to have attached himself to the lifestyle of the conquered peoples in Alexander's lifetime; he only assumed items of Persian dress after the king's death: Suda s.v. Λεόννατος = Arr. Succ. F 12 (Roos).

¹⁰¹ Peucestas was trierarch with his brother in 326 (Arr. Ind. 19.8), but at the Malli town he is merely styled ‘one of the hypaspists’ (Diod. 99.4; but cf. Arr. vi 9.3). He seems to have held no position of command before his elevation to the Bodyguard in Carmania (Arr. vi 28.3). See further Berve (n. 34) no. 634.

¹⁰² Plut., Al. 43.7Google Scholar; Curt. vi 2.11. He remained at court for a little over a year, returning to Ecbatana to supervise the execution of Bessus (Diod. 83.9; Curt. vii 5.40; Justin xii 5.11).

¹⁰³ Arr. iv 3.7. For the persistence of Iranian families in southern Asia Minor throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods see Robert, L., Opera Minora Selecta iii (Amsterdam 1969) 1532 ff.Google Scholar; CRAI 1975, 326–30. For the specifically Lycian evidence see Benveniste, E., Titres et noms propres en iranien ancien (Paris 1966) 101–3Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Arr. iv 6.1 = FGrH 139 F 27. For the general bias of this account see Pearson, L., The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (1960) 167Google Scholar f. Curtius vii 6.24, 7.34 ff. says nothing about Phamuches and makes Menedemus sole commander (so Metz Epit. 13).

¹⁰⁵ Arr. Ind. 18.8 = FGrH 133 F 1a.

¹⁰⁶ Ael. VH iii 23 = FGrH 117 F 2a. Berve (n. 34) no. 195 and Badian, , CQ viii (1958) 156Google Scholar, prefer to identify this Bagoas as the notorious eunuch.

¹⁰⁷ Arr. vii 6.4–5. For the textual problems (not relevant here) see the Appendix, p. 20.

¹⁰⁸ Some had already given service to Alexander: Cophes had negotiated the surrender of Ariomazes (Curt. vii 11.22 ff.), Phradasmenes had brought succour to the army in Carmania (Arr. vi 27.3) and Artiboles had played a role in the pursuit of Darius (iii 21.1; but cf. Curt. v 13.11; Berve (n. 34) nos. 82, 154).

¹⁰⁹ There is a possibility that they are the sons of Atropates, the third Iranian satrap surviving in 324 (Berve (n. 34) no. 124); his two colleagues, Phrataphernes and Oxyartes, had supplied sons for the agema, and he had visited Alexander at Pasargadae, shortly after the arrival of Phradasmenes and Phrataphernes (Arr. vi 29.3; cf. 27.3).

¹¹⁰ Cf. Curt. vi 2.7, adding that Hystaspes was both a relative of Darius and a military commander under him. For the fifth-century Hystaspes see Diod. xi 69.2. Given his Bactrian connexions and his relationship to Darius there is some chance that he was a relative of Bessus!

¹¹¹ Arr. iv 13.1; Curt. viii 6.2–6; cf. Berve (n. 34) i 37–9.

¹¹² Arr. iii 24.1; cf. 25.2–5, 29.7; iv 4.7, 23.1, 25.6, 26.4, 29.7; vi 17.4.

¹¹³ Berve (n. 34) i 151; Brunt, , JHS lxxxiii (1963) 42Google Scholar; Griffith, , JHS lxxxiii (1963) 69Google Scholar f.

¹¹⁴ Arr. iii 25.2, 5. The remaining ἱππακοντισταί were used on Alexander's punitive expedition (25.6).

¹¹⁵ Compare Arr. iii 25.6 with 20.1.

¹¹⁶ Arr. iv 4.6–7. Cf. Brunt (n. 113) 27 f.; Milus, R. D., JHS lxxxvi (1966) 167Google Scholar; Markle, M. M., AJA lxxxi (1977) 337Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ It is possible that even before 330 the σαρισσοφόροι used their special weapon only in pitched battle (Arr. i 14.1; Curt. iv 15.13); it would have been an unnecessary encumbrance: cf. Markle (n. 116) 334–6.

¹¹⁸ Arr. iii 29.7. The date and nature of the reorganisation is disputed (cf. Brunt (n. 113) 28–30; Griffith (n. 113) 70–73) and the subject badly needs a thorough investigation. But the year 330 was undoubtedly a time of military innovation: cf. iii 16.11 (cavalry lochoi), iii 18.5 (a mysterious and unique cavalry tetrarchia).

¹¹⁹ The javelin was a traditional weapon of the Macedonian cavalry, illustrated on the coinage of Alexander I (cf. Markle (n. 116) 337 n. 59); the Companions may have fought with a javelin as well as their thrusting lance (Diod. 60.2; Arr. i 2–6; but cf. i 15.6).

¹²⁰ Arr. iv 17.3; cf. Griffith (n. 113) 69.

¹²¹ Arr. v 11.3 (cavalry from Arachosia and Parapamisadae serving alongside Craterus' hipparchy); v 12.2 (Bactrians, Sogdians and Saka, including Dahian horse archers).

¹²² Arr. iv 24.1, 28.8; v 14.3, 15.1, 16.4, 18.3, 20.3, 22.5; vi 5.5, 6.1, 21.3, 22.1.

¹²³ Arr. v 12.2 καὶ Δάας τοὺς ἱπποτόξοτας They were apparently 1,000 strong (v 16.4); see further Altheim (n. 3) 210 f.

¹²⁴ vii 8.2: ἀνάμιξις τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ἐς τὰς τῶν ἐταίρων τάξεις Griffith (n. 113) 68, 72 f., made absurdly heavy weather of this passage and denied that Arrian is summarising his previous exposition. Instead he argues that Arrian refers to a reorganisation during the Indian campaign, in which Orientals were added to the hipparchies; see the convincing rebuttal of Badian, , JHS lxxxv (1965) 160CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁵ Brunt (n. 113) 43. For the arrival of Drangians, Areians and Parthyaeans see Arr. vi 27.3. The Euacae are only known from Arrian, but they may be a picked unit, the cavalry equivalent of the Kardakes of the infantry (Arr. ii 8.6; Nepos Dat. 8.2; Hsch. s.v.; Tarn (n. 3) ii 180–2 should be discounted).

¹²⁶ So Arr. Tact. 5.2–4: πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων ἀθρόον καὶ ἄτακτον ἐς τάξιν καὶ κόσμον καταστῆσαι— τὸ δ᾿ ἔστιν καταλοχίσαι τε καὶ ξυλλοχίσαι Compare Arr. vii 24.1 where he describes the division of Peucestas' Persians into phalanx files; at vii 23.3 he uses καταλέγειν as a synonym (cf. Diod. xviii 70.1).

¹²⁷ So Griffith (n. 113) 72: his second interpretation ‘one λόχος of each ile now became a λόχος of picked Iranians’ is not impossible, but again it reads too much into the wording. The word anticipates κατελέγησαν and προσκαταλεγέντες immediately below and, as at vii 24.1, it is used as a conscious variant in the most general sense.

¹²⁸ I do not understand how Brunt (n. 113) 44 can say that it ‘might mean that it was more or less Oriental than the other four’.

¹²⁹ E.g. Berve (n. 34) i 111 f.; Tarn (n. 3) ii 164 f.; Brunt (n. 113) 43 f.; Griffith (n. 113) 72–4.

¹³⁰ There were eight hipparchies in addition to the agema between 328 and 326 (cf. Arr. iv 24.1 with 22.7, 23.1; vi 6.4 with 7.2 and 6.1; Brunt [n. 113] 29 has miscalculated by one). There must have been serious losses in Gedrosia but we have no basis for speculation.

¹³¹ For the casualties see Strasburger, H., Hermes lxxx (1952) 486Google Scholar f. (15,000 survivors out of 60,000/70,000). For the livestock see Arr. vi 25.1: τῶν ἴππων τοὺς πολλοὺς ἀποσφάζοντες

¹³² Arr. vii 11.3; cf. Griffith (n. 113) 72: ‘this must imply that hitherto its members have been all Macedonians’.

¹³³ Arr. vi 17.3; vi 14.4 does not explicitly exclude Iranians.

¹³⁴ Anaximenes, FGrH 72 F 4Google Scholar; on which see most recently Brunt, P. A., JHS xcvi (1976) 150–3Google Scholar; Milns, R. D. in Entr. Hardt xxii (1976) 89Google Scholar ff.

¹³⁵ Arr. vii 6.1; Diod. 108.1–3; Plut., Al. 71.1Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ Plut., Al. 47.6Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ Briant, P., RÉA lxxiv (1972) 51–60Google Scholar, esp. 55—an excellent summary, but slightly misleading in that Briant (57) seems to think that Alexander actually conferred the title pezhetairoi upon his Iranian infantry at Opis. Arrian suggests that Alexander made a threat only; there is no hint that he fully carried it out.

¹³⁸ Diod. xi 67.5 (cf. Plut., Cleom. 23.1)Google Scholar; Plut., Eum. 4.2–3Google Scholar: pace Briant (n. 137) 58 it does not appear that Eumenes created an ἀντίταγμα against his own troops. After the victory against Ariarathes Neoptolemus was left to continue operations in Armenia with a large nucleus of Macedonian troops (Briant, , Antigone le Borgne [Paris 1973] 152Google Scholar n. 8). According to Plutarch Perdiccas had his suspicions of Neoptolemus' loyalty and commissioned Eumenes to control him—hence the need for the Iranian cavalry to be used against Neoptolemus' phalanx (Eum. 4.3, cf. 5.4). There is no indication that Eumenes had Macedonians of his own in any numbers (cf. Diod. xviii 29.5).

¹³⁹ Curt. viii 5.1: obsides simul habiturus et milites. Justin xii 4.11 dates the formation of the Epigoni to the same period but conflates them with the soldiers' children who were also trained in Macedonian style (cf. Arr. vii 12.2).

¹⁴⁰ vii 6.1: οἱ σατράπαι οἱ ἐκ τῶν πόλεων τῶν νεοκτίστων καὶ τῆς ἄλλης γῆς δοριαλώτου At v 20.7 Sisicottus, previously named phrurarch of Aornus (iv 30.4), is termed satrap. For the interchangeability of the terms satrap and hyparch see Bosworth, , CQ xxiv (1974) 55–7Google Scholar.

¹⁴¹ E.g. iv 22.4.

¹⁴² Justin xii 4.2–10: Berve (n. 5) 157–9 valiantly attempts to prove that the women of these marriages were predominantly Iranian.

¹⁴³ Arr. vii 4.8 (cf. Plut., Al. 70.3)Google Scholar; vii 12.2.

¹⁴⁴ Diod. xvii 74.3; Curt. vi 2.15–4.1; Justin xii 3.2–4; Plut., Al. 47.1–2Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ Cf. Badian (n. 7) 201: ‘his purpose, ultimately, was the creation of a royal army with no fixed blood or domicile—children of the camp who knew no loyalty but to him’.

¹⁴⁶ Arr. vii 23.1–4; cf. Diod. 110.2 (wrongly assigned to Susa 324).

¹⁴⁷ Plb. xviii 30.1–4; cf. Arr. Tact. 12.10.

¹⁴⁸ Arr. Ect. c. Alanos 15–17. 26 f. For full discussion see Bosworth, , HSCP lxxxi (1977) 238–47Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁹ Arr. i 6.1–3; ii 8.2 (cf. Plb. xii 19.5 f.; Curt. iii 9.12).

¹⁵⁰ So Brunt (n. 113) 38; Griffith, , G&R xii (1965) 130–1Google Scholar n. 4. Berve (n. 34) i 134, was more cautious (Curtius gives a total of Macedonians and Greeks without giving their relative proportions).

¹⁵¹ Cf. Curt. x 2.2; Justin xiii 5.7 (Athens). For the Arabian expedition see Schachermeyr (n. 3) 538–46.

¹⁵² Even so the possibility of being chosen led to panic (Curt. x 2.12).

¹⁵³ Diod. xviii 16.4. The figure 10,000 is standard; Arr. vii 12.1; Diod. xvii 109.1; cf. Justin xii 12.7 (11,000, presumably including the 1,500 cavalry).

¹⁵⁴ Curt. vii 10.11 f.; ix 3.21. Alexander had sent a recruiting expedition from Sogdiana in winter 328/7 (Arr. iv 18.3) but there were no results before 323, when the cavalry with Menidas at Babylon may have come from Macedonia (vii 23.1; cf. Berve [n. 34] no. 258, Badian [n. 52] 22 n. 39). Justin also suggests that the shortage of Macedonians was becoming apparent by 327 (xii 4.5).

¹⁵⁵ Diod. xviii 12.2. Pace Griffith (n. 150) 130 f., the forces of Antipater in 323 cannot be estimated from Diodorus' figures, for Μακεδόνες at 12.2 patently means ‘the forces on the Macedonian side’, doubtless including Illyrians and Thracians as well as mercenaries: cf. Launey, M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (Paris 1949) 292Google Scholar f. We should remember that Antipater was in similar difficulties at the time of Agis' War yet was able to raise a force of 40,000: Diod. 63.1; cf. Phoenix xxix (1975) 35–8. Similarly we have no idea how many of the 20,000 foot raised by Leonnatus (Diod. xviii 14.4–5) were native Macedonians. The only thing certain is that the forces with Craterus in 321 were 20,000 in number and ‘mostly Macedonians’ (Diod. xviii 30.4; cf. 24.1), but, once again, the nucleus must have been the veterans he had brought from Opis.

¹⁵⁶ For their presence with Perdiccas see Arr. Succ. F 1.35 (Roos) and for their famous ἀποσκεύη see Diod. xix 43.7; Plut. Eum. 16; Justin xiv 3.3 ff.

¹⁵⁷ Peithon in 323 had 3,000 infantry and 800 cavalry selected by lot from the Macedonians (Diod. xviii 7.3) and Neoptolemus had an unspecified number of Macedonians in Armenia (above, n. 138); but we have no criteria for calculating the total. Berve's estimate of 4,000–5,000 (i 185) is the merest guess (see also Schachermeyr [n. 14] 14 f: 5,000–6,000 phalangites and hypaspists).

¹⁵⁸ Diod. xix 30.6, 41.1–2; Plut., Eum. 16.7–8Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁹ Justin xvii 2.10 f.; for Antigonus see Hieronymus, , FGrH 154Google Scholar F 10.

¹⁶⁰ Arr. vii 12.4; on this matter see Badian (n. 52) 38 f.; Bosworth (n. 69) 125.

¹⁶¹ Arr. vii 25.2 (from the Ephemerides); cf. Plut. Al. 76.3 with Hamilton's notes.

¹⁶² Contrast Berve (n. 5) 157: ‘Und es kann kaum einem Zweifel unterliegen, dass Alexander auch den aus Makedonien zu erwartenden Nachschub mit iranischen Elementen … in ähnlicher Weise zu verbinden beabsichtigte.’