Opening
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
* Italics are denoted by underscores as in italics. * Small caps are represented in upper case as in SMALL CAPS. * Letter spaced Greek text is enclosed in tildes as in ~καὶ τὰ λοιπά~. * Footnotes have been renumbered. Each footnote is placed at the end of the paragraph that includes its anchor. * Obvious printer errors have been silently corrected, after comparison with a later edition of this work. Greek text has also been corrected after checking with this later edition and with Perseus, when the reference was found. * Original spelling, have been kept, but variant spellings were made consistent when a predominant usage was found. * Nevetherless, no attempt has been made at normalizing proper names (i.e. Agrianes and Agriânes, Onchestus and Onchêstus, Megalêpolis and Megalê-Polis, Mantinea and Mantineia, Crête and Krête, Phenicians and Phœnicians, etc.). The author established at the beginning of the first volume of this work some rules of transcription for proper names, but neither he nor his publisher follow them consistently. * In the Table of Contents, some page numbers have been emended so that they refer to the actual pages where chapters begin and end.
HISTORY OF GREECE.
BY
GEORGE GROTE, ESQ.
VOL. XII.
REPRINTED FROM THE LONDON EDITION.
NEW YORK: HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, 329 AND 331 PEARL STREET. 1875.
VOL. XII.
Chapter XCI
FIRST PERIOD OF THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT — SIEGE AND CAPTURE OF THEBES.
State of Greece at Alexander’s accession — dependence on the Macedonian kings. — Unwilling subjection of the Greeks — influence of Grecian intelligence on Macedonia. — Basis of Alexander’s character — not Hellenic. — Boyhood and Education of Alexander. — He receives instruction from Aristotle. — Early political action and maturity of Alexander — his quarrels with his father. Family discord. — Uncertainty of Alexander’s position during the last year of Philip. — Impression produced by the sudden death of Philip. — Accession of Alexander — his energy and judgment. — Accomplices of Pausanias are slain by Alexander — Amyntas and others are slain by him also. — Sentiment at Athens on the death of Philip — language of Demosthenes — inclination to resist Macedonia, yet without overt act. — Discontent in Greece — but no positive movement. — March of Alexander into Greece — submission of Athens. — Alexander is chosen Imperator of the Greeks in the convention at Corinth — continued refusal of concurrence by Sparta. — Conditions of the vote thus passed — privileges granted to the cities. — Authority claimed by Alexander under the convention — degradation of the leading Grecian states. — Encroachments and tyranny of the Macedonian officers in Greece — complaints of the orators at Athens. — Violations of the convention at sea by Macedonian officers. — Language of the complaining Athenians — they insist only on strict observance of the convention. Boldness of their language. — Encouragements held out by Persia to the Greeks. — Correspondence of Demosthenes with Persia — justifiable and politic. — March of Alexander into Thrace. He forces his way over Mount Hæmus. — His victory over the Triballi. — He crosses the Danube, defeats the Getæ, and returns back. — Embassy of Gauls to Alexander. His self-conceit. — Victories of Alexander over Kleitus and the Illyrians. — The Thebans declare their independence against Macedonia. — They are encouraged by Alexander’s long absence in Thrace, and by reports of his death. — The Theban exiles from Athens get possession of Thebes. — They besiege the Macedonians in the Kadmeia, and entreat aid from other Greeks. Favorable sympathies shown towards them, but no positive aid. — Chances of Thebes and liberation, not unfavorable. — Rapid march and unexpected arrival of Alexander with his army before Thebes. His good fortune as to the time of hearing the news. — Siege of Thebes. Proclamation of Alexander. Determination of the Thebans to resist. — Capture of Thebes by assault. Massacre of the population. — Thebes is razed; the Theban captives sold as slaves; the territory distributed among the neighboring cities. — The Kadmeia is occupied as a Macedonian Military post. Retribution upon the Thebans from Orchomenus and Platæa. — Sentiments of Alexander, at the time and afterwards, respecting the destruction of Thebes. — Extreme terror spread throughout Greece. Sympathy of the Athenians towards the Theban exiles. — Alexander demands the surrender of the chief anti-Macedonian leaders at Athens. Memorable debate at Athens. The demand refused. — Embassy of the Athenians to Alexander. He is persuaded to acquiesce in the refusal, and to be satisfied with the banishment of Charidemus and Ephialtes. — Influence of Phokion in obtaining these milder terms — his increased ascendency at Athens. — Alexander at Corinth — obedience of the Grecian synod — interview with the philosopher Diogenes. — Reconstitution of Orchomenus and Platæa. Return of Alexander to Pella. — Military operations of Parmenio in Asia Minor against Memnon. 1-49
XCII. ASIATIC CAMPAIGNS OF ALEXANDER
During Alexander’s reign, the history of Greece is nearly a blank. To what extent the Asiatic projects of Alexander belonged to Grecian history. — Pan-hellenic pretences set up by Alexander. The real feeling of the Greeks was adverse to his success. — Analogy of Alexander’s relation to the Greeks — with those of the Emperor Napoleon to the Confederation of the Rhine. — Greece an appendage, but a valuable appendage, to Macedonia. — Extraordinary military endowments and capacity of Alexander. — Changes in Grecian warfare, antecedent and contributory to the military organization of Macedonia. — Macedonian military condition before Philip. Good and firm cavalry: poor infantry. — Philip re-arms and reorganizes the infantry. Long Macedonian pike or sarissa. — Macedonian phalanx — how armed and arrayed. — It was originally destined to contend against the Grecian hoplites as organized by Epaminondas. — Regiments and divisions of the phalanx — heavy-armed infantry. — Light infantry of the line — Hypaspistæ, or Guards. — Light troops generally — mostly foreigners. — Macedonian cavalry — its excellence — how regimented. — The select Macedonian Body-guards. The Royal Pages. — Foreign auxiliaries — Grecian hoplites — Thessalian cavalry — Pæonians — Illyrians — Thracians, etc. — Magazines, war-office, and depôt, at Pella. — Macedonian aptitudes — purely military — military pride stood to them in lieu of national sentiment. — Measures of Alexander previous to his departure for Asia. Antipater left as viceroy at Pella. — March of Alexander to the Hellespont. Passage across to Asia. — Visit of Alexander to Ilium. — Analogy of Alexander to the Greek heroes. — Review and total of the Macedonian army in Asia. — Chief Macedonian officers. — Greeks in Alexander’s service — Eumenes of Kardia. — Persian forces — Mentor and Memnon the Rhodians. — Succession of the Persian crown — Ochus — Darius Codomannus. — Preparations of Darius for defence. — Operations of Memnon before Alexander’s arrival. — Superiority of the Persians at sea: their imprudence in letting Alexander cross the Hellespont unopposed. — Persian force assembled in Phrygia, under Arsites and others. — Advice of Memnon, to avoid fighting on land, and to employ the fleet for aggressive warfare in Macedonia and Greece. — Arsites rejects Memnon’s advice, and determines to fight. — The Persians take post on the river Granikus. — Alexander reaches the Granikus, and resolves to force the passage at once, in spite of the dissuasion of Permenio. — Disposition of the two armies. — Battle of the Granikus. — Cavalry battle. — Personal danger of Alexander. His life saved by Kleitus. Complete victory of Alexander. Destruction of the Grecian infantry on the side of the Persians. — Loss of the Persians — numbers of their leading men slain. — Small loss of the Macedonians. — Alexander’s kindness to his wounded soldiers, and severe treatment of the Grecian prisoners. — Unskilfulness of the Persian leaders. Immense impression produced by Alexander’s victory. — Terror and submission of the Asiatics to Alexander. Surrender of the strong fortress of Sardis. — He marches from Sardis to the coast. Capture of Ephesus. — He finds the first resistance at Miletus. — Near approach of the Persian fleet. Memnon is made commander-in-chief of the Persians. — The Macedonian fleet occupies the harbor of Miletus, and keeps out the Persians. Alexander declines naval combat. His debate with Parmenio. — Alexander besieges Miletus. Capture of the city. — The Persian fleet retires to Halikarnassus. Alexander disbands his own fleet. — March of Alexander to Halikarnassus. Ada queen of Karia joins him. Strong garrison, and good defensive preparation, at Halikarnassus. — Siege of Halikarnassus. Bravery of the garrison, under Ephialtes the Athenian. — Desperate sally of Ephialtes — at first successful, but repulsed — he himself is slain. — Memnon is forced to abandon Halikarnassus, and withdraw the garrison by sea, retaining only the citadel. Alexander enters Halikarnassus. — Winter campaign of Alexander along the southern coast of Asia Minor. — Alexander concludes his winter campaign at Gordium. Capture of Kelænæ. — Appendix on the Macedonian Sarissa. 49-104
Chapter XCIII
SECOND AND THIRD ASIATIC CAMPAIGNS OF ALEXANDER — BATTLE OF ISSUS — SIEGE OF TYRE.
Alexander cuts the Gordian knot. — He refuses the liberation of the Athenian prisoners. — Progress of Memnon and the Persian fleet — they acquire Chios and a large part of Lesbos — they besiege Mitylene. Death of Memnon. Capture of Mitylene. — Hopes excited in Greece by the Persian fleet, but ruined by the death of Memnon. — Memnon’s death an irreparable mischief to Darius. — Change in Darius’s plan caused by this event. He resolves to take the offensive on land. His immense land-force. — Free speech and sound judgment of Charidemus. He is put to death by Darius. — Darius abandoned Memnon’s plans, just at the time when he had the best defensive position for executing them with effect. — Darius recalls the Grecian mercenaries from the fleet. — Criticism of Arrian on Darius’s plan. — March of Alexander from Gordium through Paphlagonia and Kappadokia. — He arrives at the line of Mount Taurus — difficulties of the pass. — Conduct of Arsames, the Persian satrap. Alexander passes Mount Taurus without the least resistance. He enters Tarsus. — Dangerous illness of Alexander. His confidence in the physician Philippus, who cures him. — Operations of Alexander in Kilikia. — March of Alexander out of Kilikia, through Issus, to Myriandrus. — March of Darius from the interior to the eastern side of Mount Amanus. Immense numbers of his army: great wealth and ostentation in it: the treasure and baggage sent to Damascus. — Position of Darius on the plain eastward of Mount Amanus. He throws open the mountain passes, to let Alexander come through and fight a pitched battle. — Impatience of Darius at the delay of Alexander in Kilikia. He crosses Mount Amanus to attack Alexander in the defiles of Kilikia. — He arrives in Alexander’s rear, and captures Issus. — Return of Alexander from Myriandrus: his address to his army. — Position of the Macedonian army south of the river Pinarus. — Position of the Persian army north of the Pinarus. — Battle of Issus. — Alarm and immediate flight of Darius — defeat of the Persians. — Vigorous and destructive pursuit by Alexander — capture of the mother and wife of Darius. — Courteous treatment of the regal female prisoners by Alexander. — Complete dispersion of the Persian army — Darius recrosses the Euphrates — escape of some Perso-Grecian mercenaries. — Prodigious effect produced by the victory of Issus. — Effects produced in Greece by the battle of Issus. Anti-Macedonian projects crushed. — Capture of Damascus by the Macedonians, with the Persian treasure and prisoners. Capture and treatment of the Athenian Iphikrates. Altered relative position of Greeks and Macedonians. — Alexander in Phenicia. Aradus, Byblus, and Sidon open their gates to him. — Letter of Darius soliciting peace and the restitution of the regal captives. Haughty reply of Alexander. — Importance of the voluntary surrender of the Phenician towns to Alexander. — Alexander appears before Tyre — readiness of the Tyrians to surrender, yet not without a point reserved — he determines to besiege the city. — Exorbitant dispositions and conduct of Alexander. — He prepares to besiege Tyre — situation of the place. — Chances of the Tyrians — their resolution not unreasonable. — Alexander constructs a mole across the strait between Tyre and the mainland. The project is defeated. — Surrender of the princes of Cyprus to Alexander — He gets hold of the main Phenician and Cyprian fleet. — He appears before Tyre with a numerous fleet, and blocks up the place by sea. — Capture of Tyre by storm — desperate resistance by the citizens. — Surviving males, 2000 in number, hanged by order of Alexander — The remaining captives sold. — Duration of the siege for seven months. Sacrifice of Alexander to Herakles. — Second letter from Darius to Alexander, who requires unconditional submission. — The Macedonian fleet overpowers the Persian and becomes master of the Ægean with the islands. — March of Alexander towards Egypt — siege of Gaza. — His first assaults fail — he is wounded — he erects an immense mound round the town. — Gaza is taken by storm, after a siege of two months. — The garrison are all slain, except the governor Batis, who becomes prisoner, severely wounded. — Wrath of Alexander against Batis, whom he causes to be tied to a chariot, and dragged round the town. — Alexander enters Egypt, and occupies it without resistance — He determines on founding Alexandria. — His visit to the temple and oracle of Ammon. The oracle proclaims him to be the son of Zeus. — Arrangements made by Alexander at Memphis. — Grecian prisoners brought from the Ægean. — He proceeds to Phenicia — message from Athens. Splendid festivals. Reinforcements sent to Antipater. — He marches to the Euphrates — crosses it without opposition at Thapsakus. — March across from the Euphrates to the Tigris. Alexander fords the Tigris above Nineveh, without resistance. — Eclipse of the moon. Alexander approaches near the army of Darius in position. — Inaction of Darius since the defeat at Issus. — Paralyzing effect upon him produced by the captivity of his mother and wife. — Good treatment of the captive females by Alexander — necessary to keep up their value as hostages. — Immense army collected by Darius, in the plains eastward of the Tigris — near Arbela. — He fixes the spot for encamping and awaiting the attack of Alexander — in a level plain near Gaugamela. — His equipment and preparation — better arms — numerous scythed chariots — elephants. — Position and battle array of Darius. — Preliminary movements of Alexander — discussions with Parmenio and other officers. His careful reconnoitring in person. — Dispositions of Alexander for the attack — array of the troops. — Battle of Arbela. — Cowardice of Darius — he sets the example of flight — defeat of the Persians. — Combat on the Persian right between Mazæus and Parmenio. Flight of the Persian host — energetic pursuit by Alexander. — Escape of Darius. Capture of the Persian camp, and of Arbela. — Loss in the battle. Completeness of the victory. Entire and irreparable dispersion of the Persian army. — Causes of the defeat — cowardice of Darius. Uselessness of his immense numbers. — Generalship of Alexander. — Surrender of Babylon and Susa, the two great capitals of Persia. Alexander enters Babylon. Immense treasures acquired in both places. — Alexander acts as king of Persia, and nominates satraps. He marches to Susa. He remodels the divisions of his army. — Alexander marches into Persis proper — he conquers the refractory Uxii, in the intermediate mountains. — Difficult pass called the Susian Gates, on the way to Persepolis. Ariobarzanes the satrap repulses Alexander, who finds means to turn the pass, and conquer it. — Alexander enters Persepolis. Mutilated Grecian captives. — Immense wealth, and national monuments of every sort, accumulated in Persepolis. — Alexander appropriates and carries away the regal treasures, and then gives up Persepolis to be plundered and burnt by the soldiers. — Alexander rests his troops, and employs himself in conquering the rest of Persis. — Darius a fugitive in Media. 104-178
Chapter XCIV
MILITARY OPERATIONS AND CONQUESTS OF ALEXANDER, AFTER HIS WINTER QUARTERS IN PERSIS, DOWN TO HIS DEATH AT BABYLON.
The first four Asiatic campaigns of Alexander — their direct bearing and importance in reference to Grecian history. — His last seven years, farther eastward, had no similar bearing upon Greece. — Darius at Ekbatana — seeks escape towards Baktria, when he hears of Alexander approaching. — Alexander enters Ekbatana — establishes there his depôt and base of operations. — Alexander sends home the Thessalian cavalry — necessity for him now to pursue a more desultory warfare. — Alexander pursues Darius to the Caspian Gates, but fails in overtaking him. — Conspiracy formed against Darius by Bessus and others, who seize his person. — Prodigious efforts of Alexander to overtake and get possession of Darius. He surprises the Persian corps, but Bessus puts Darius to death. — Disappointment of Alexander when he missed taking Darius alive. Regal funeral bestowed upon Darius. His fate and conduct. — Repose of Alexander and his army at Hekatompylus in Parthia. Commencing alteration in his demeanor. He becomes Asiatized and despotic. — Gradual aggravation of these new habits, from the present moment. — Alexander conquers the mountains immediately south of the Caspian. He requires the Greek mercenaries to surrender at discretion. Envoys from Sparta and other Greek cities brought to him — how treated. — March of Alexander farther Eastward — his successes in Asia and Drangiana. — Proceedings against Philotas, son of Parmenio, in Drangiana. Military greatness and consideration of the family. — Revelation of an intended conspiracy made by Kebalinus to Philotas, for the purpose of being communicated to Alexander. Philotas does not mention it to Alexander. It is communicated to the latter through another channel. — Alexander is at first angry with Philotas, but accepts his explanation, and professes to pass over the fact. — Ancient grudge against Philotas — advantage taken of the incident to ruin him. — Kraterus and others are jealous of Parmenio and Philotas. Alexander is persuaded to put them both to death. — Arrest of Philotas. Alexander accuses him before the assembled soldiers. He is condemned. — Philotas is put to the torture, and forced to confess, both against himself and Parmenio. — Parmenio is slain at Ekbatana, by order and contrivance of Alexander. Mutiny of the soldiers when they learn the assassination of Parmenio — appeased by the production of Alexander’s order. — Fear and disgust produced by the killing of Parmenio and Philotas. — Conquest of the Paropamisadæ, etc. Foundation of Alexandria ad Caucasum. — Alexander crosses the Hindoo-Koosh, and conquers Baktria. Bessus is made prisoner. — Massacre of the Branchidæ and their families, perpetrated by Alexander in Sogdiana. — Alexander at Marakanda and on the Jaxartes. — Foundation of Alexandria ad Jaxartem. Limit of march northward. — Alexander at Zariaspa in Baktria — he causes Bessus to be mutilated and slain. — Farther subjugation of Baktria and Sogdiana. Halt at Marakanda. — Banquet at Marakanda. — Character and position of Kleitus. — Boasts of Alexander and his flatterers — repugnance of Macedonian officers felt but not expressed. — Scene at the banquet — vehement remonstrance of Kleitus. — Furious wrath of Alexander — he murders Kleitus. — Intense remorse of Alexander, immediately after the deed. — Active and successful operations of Alexander in Sogdiana. — Capture of two inexpugnable positions — the Sogdian rock — the rock of Choriênes. Passion of Alexander for Roxana. — Alexander at Baktra — marriage with Roxana. His demand for prostration or worship from all. — Public harangue of Anaxarchus during a banquet, exhorting every one to render this worship. — Public reply of Kallisthenes, opposing it. Character and history of Kallisthenes. — The reply of Kallisthenes is favorably heard by the guests — the proposition for worship is dropped. — Coldness and disfavor of Alexander towards Kallisthenes. — Honorable frankness and courage of Kallisthenes. — Kallisthenes becomes odious to Alexander. — Conspiracy of the royal pages against Alexander’s life — it is divulged — they are put to torture, but implicate no one else; they are put to death. — Kallisthenes is arrested as an accomplice — antipathy manifested by Alexander against him and against Aristotle also. — Kallisthenes is tortured and hanged. — Alexander reduces the country between the Hindoo-Koosh and the Indus. — Conquest of tribes on the right bank of the Indus — the rock of Aornos. — Alexander crosses the Indus — forces the passage of the Hydaspes, defeating Porus — generous treatment of Porus. — His farther conquests in the Punjab. Sangala the last of them. — He reaches the Hyphasis (Sutledge), the farthest of the rivers of the Punjab. His army refuses to march farther. — Alexander returns to the Hydaspes. — He constructs a fleet and sails down the Hydaspes and the Indus. Dangerous wound of Alexander in attacking the Malli. — New cities and posts to be established on the Indus — Alexander reaches the ocean — effect of the first sight of tides. — March of Alexander by land westward through the desert of Gedrosia — sufferings and losses in the army. — Alexander and the army come back to Persis. — Conduct of Alexander at Persepolis. Punishment of the satrap Orsines. — He marches to Susa — junction with the fleet under Nearchus, after it had sailed round from the mouth of the Indus. — Alexander at Susa as Great King. Subjects of uneasiness to him — the satraps — the Macedonian soldiers. — Past conduct of the satraps — several of them are punished by Alexander — alarm among them all — flight of Harpalus. — Discontents of the Macedonian soldiers with the Asiatizing intermarriages promoted by Alexander. — Their discontent with the new Asiatic soldiers levied and disciplined by Alexander. — Interest of Alexander in the fleet, which sails up the Tigris to Opis. — Notice of partial discharge to the Macedonian soldiers — they mutiny — wrath of Alexander — he disbands them all. — Remorse and humiliation of the soldiers — Alexander is appeased — reconciliation. — Partial disbanding — body of veterans placed under command of Kraterus to return — New projects of conquests contemplated by Alexander — measures for enlarging his fleet. — Visit to Ekbatana — death of Hephæstion — violent sorrow of Alexander. — Alexander exterminates the Kossæi. — March of Alexander to Babylon. Numerous embassies which met him on the way. — Alexander at Babylon — his great preparations for the circumnavigation and conquest of Arabia. — Alexander on shipboard, on the Euphrates and in the marshes adjoining. His plans for improving the navigation and flow of the river. — Large reinforcements arrive, Grecian and Asiatic. New array ordered by Alexander, for Macedonians and Persians in the same files and companies. — Splendid funeral obsequies of Hephæstion. — General feasting and intemperance in the army. Alexander is seized with a dangerous fever. Details of his illness. — No hope of his life. Consternation and grief in the army. Last interview with his soldiers. His death — Effect produced on the imagination of contemporaries by the career and death of Alexander. — Had Alexander lived, he must have achieved things greater still. — Question raised by Livy, about the chances of Alexander if he had attacked the Romans. — Unrivalled excellence as a military man. — Alexander as a ruler, apart from military affairs — not deserving of esteem. — Alexander would have continued the system of the Persian empire, with no other improvement except that of a strong organization. — Absence of nationality in Alexander — purpose of fusing the different varieties of mankind into one common type of subjection. — Mistake of supposing Alexander to be the intentional diffuser of Greek civilization. His ideas compared with those of Aristotle. — Number of new cities founded in Asia by Alexander. — It was not Alexander, but the Diadochi after him, who chiefly hellenized Asia. — How far Asia was ever really hellenized — the great fact was, that the Greek language became universally diffused. — Greco-Asiatic cities. — Increase of the means of communication between various parts of the world. — Interest of Alexander in science and literature — not great. 178-274
Chapter XCV
GRECIAN AFFAIRS FROM THE LANDING OF ALEXANDER IN ASIA TO THE CLOSE OF THE LAMIAN WAR.
State of the Grecian world when Alexander crossed the Hellespont. — Grecian spirit might have been called into action if the Persians had played their game well. — Hopes raised in Greece, first by the Persian fleet in the Ægean, next by the two great Persian armies on land. — Public acts and policy at Athens — decidedly pacific. — Phokion and Demades were leading ministers at Athens — they were of macedonizing politics. — Demosthenes and Lykurgus, though not in the ascendent politically, are nevertheless still public men of importance. Financial activity of Lykurgus. — Position of Demosthenes — his prudent conduct — Anti-Macedonian movement from Sparta — King Agis visits the Persian admirals in the Ægean. His attempts both in Krete and in the Peloponnesus. — Agis levies an army in Peloponnesus, and makes open declaration against Antipater. — Agis, at first partially successful, is completely defeated by Antipater, and slain. — Complete submission of all Greece to Antipater — Spartan envoys sent up to Alexander in Asia. — Untoward result of the defensive efforts of Greece — want of combination. — Position of parties at Athens during the struggle of Agis — reaction of the macedonizing party after his defeat. — Judicial contest between Æschines and Demosthenes. Preliminary circumstances as to the proposition of Ktesiphon, and the indictment by Æschines. — Accusatory harangue of Æschines, nominally against the proposition of Ktesiphon, really against the political life of Demosthenes. — Appreciation of Æschines, on independent evidence, as an accuser of Demosthenes. — Reply of Demosthenes — oration De Coronâ. — Funeral oration of extinct Grecian freedom. — Verdict of the Dikasts — triumph of Demosthenes — exile of Æschines. — Causes of the exile of Æschines — he was the means of procuring coronation for Demosthenes. — Subsequent accusation against Demosthenes, in the affair of Harpalus. — Flight of Harpalus to Athens — his previous conduct and relations with Athens. — False reports conveyed to Alexander, that the Athenians had identified themselves with Harpalus. — Circumstances attending the arrival of Harpalus at Sunium — debate in the Athenian assembly — promises held out by Harpalus — the Athenians seem at first favorably disposed towards him. — Phokion and Demosthenes both agree in dissuading the Athenians from taking up Harpalus. — Demand by Antipater for the surrender of Harpalus — the Athenians refuse to comply, but they arrest Harpalus and sequestrate his treasure for Alexander. — Demosthenes moves the decree for arrest of Harpalus, who is arrested, but escapes. — Conduct of Demosthenes in regard to the treasure of Harpalus — deficiency of the sum counted and realized, as compared with the sum announced by Harpalus. — Suspicions about this money — Demosthenes moves that the Areopagus shall investigate the matter — the Areopagites bring in a report against Demosthenes himself, with Demades and others, as guilty of corrupt appropriation. Demosthenes is tried on this charge, condemned, and goes into exile. — Was Demosthenes guilty of such corrupt appropriation? Circumstances as known in the case. — Demosthenes could not have received the money from Harpalus, since he opposed him from first to last. — Had Demosthenes the means of embezzling, after the money had passed out of the control of Harpalus? Answer in the negative. Accusatory speech of Deinarchus — virulent invective destitute of facts. — Change of mind respecting Demosthenes, in the Athenean public, in a few months. — Probable reality of the case, respecting the money of Harpalus, and the sentence of the Areopagus. — Rescript of Alexander to the Grecian cities, directing that the exiles should be recalled in each. — Purpose of the rescript — to provide partisans for Alexander in each of the cities. Discontents in Greece. — Effect produced in Greece, by the death of Alexander. The Athenians declare themselves champions of the liberation of Greece, in spite of Phokion’s opposition. — The Ætolians and many other Greeks join the confederacy for liberation — activity of the Athenian Leosthenes as General. — Athenian envoys sent round to invite co-operation from the various Greeks. — Assistance lent to the Athenian envoys by Demosthenes, though in exile. — He is recalled to Athens, and receives an enthusiastic welcome. — Large Grecian confederacy against Antipater — nevertheless without Sparta. Bœotia strongly in the Macedonian interest. Leosthenes with the confederate army marches into Thessaly. — Battle in Thessaly — victory of Leosthenes over Antipater, who is compelled to throw himself into Lamia, and await succors from Asia — Leosthenes forms the blockade of Lamia: he is slain. — Misfortune of the death of Leosthenes. Antiphilus is named in his place. Relaxed efforts of the Grecian army. — Leonnatus, with a Macedonian army from Asia, arrives in Thessaly. His defeat and death. — Antipater escapes from Lamia, and takes the command. — War carried on by sea between the Macedonian and Athenian fleets. — Reluctance of the Greek contingents to remain on long-continued service. The army in Thessaly is thinned by many returning home. — Expected arrival of Kraterus to reinforce Antipater. Relations between the Macedonian officers. — State of the regal family, and of the Macedonian generals and soldiery, after the death of Alexander. — Philip Aridæus is proclaimed king: the satrapies are distributed among the principal officers. — Perdikkas the chief representative of central authority, assisted by Eumenes of Kardia. — List of projects entertained by Alexander at the time of his death. The generals dismiss them as too vast. — Plans of Leonnatus and Kleopatra. — Kraterus joins Antipater in Macedonia with a powerful army. Battle of Krannon in Thessaly. Antipater gains a victory over the Greeks though not a complete one. — Antiphilus tries to open negotiations with Antipater, who refuses to treat except with each city singly. Discouragement among the Greeks. Each city treats separately. Antipater grants favorable terms to all, except Athenians and Ætolians. Antipater and his army in Bœotia — Athens left alone and unable to resist. Demosthenes and the other anti-Macedonian orators take flight. Embassy of Phokion, Xenokrates, and others to Antipater. — Severe terms imposed upon Athens by Antipater. — Disfranchisement and deportation of the 12,000 poorest Athenian citizens. — Hardship suffered by the deported poor of Athens — Macedonian garrison placed in Munychia. — Demosthenes, Hyperides, and others, are condemned to death in their absence. Antipater sends officers to track and seize the Grecian exiles. He puts Hyperides to death. — Demosthenes in sanctuary at Kalauria — Archias with Thracian soldiers comes to seize him — he takes poison, and dies. — Miserable condition of Greece — life and character of Demosthenes. — Dishonorable position of Phokion at Athens under the Macedonian occupation. 275-331
Chapter XCVI
FROM THE LAMIAN WAR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HISTORY OF FREE HELLAS AND HELLENISM.
Antipater purges and remodels the Peloponnesian cities. He attacks the Ætolians, with a view of departing them across to Asia. His presence becomes necessary in Asia: he concludes a pacification with the Ætolians. — Plans of Perdikkas — intrigues with the princesses at Pella. — Antigonus detects the intrigues, and reveals them to Antipater and Kraterus. — Unpropitious turn of fortune for the Greeks, in reference to the Lamian war. — Antipater and Kraterus in Asia — Perdikkas marches to attack Ptolemy in Egypt, but is killed by a mutiny of his own troops. Union of Antipater, Ptolemy, Antigonus, etc. New distribution of the satrapies, made at Triparadeisus. — War between Antigonus and Eumenes in Asia. Energy and ability of Eumenes. He is worsted and blocked up in Nora. — Sickness and death of Antipater. The Athenian orator Demades is put to death in Macedonia — Antipater sets aside his son Kassander, and names Polysperchon viceroy. Discontent and opposition of Kassander. — Kassander sets up for himself, gets possession of Munychia, and forms alliance with Ptolemy and Antigonus against Polysperchon. Plans of Polysperchon — alliance with Olympias in Europe, and with Eumenes in Asia — enfranchisement of the Grecian cities. — Ineffectual attempts of Eumenes to uphold the imperial dynasty in Asia: his gallantry and ability: he is betrayed by his own soldiers, and slain by Antigonus. — Edict issued by Polysperchon at Pella, in the name of the imperial dynasty — subverting the Antipatrian oligarchies in the Grecian cities, restoring political exiles, and granting free constitutions to each. — Letters and measures of Polysperchon to enforce the edict. State of Athens: exiles returning: complicated political parties: danger of Phokion. — Negotiations of the Athenians with Nikanor, governor of Munychia for Kassander. — Nikanor seizes Peiræus by surprise. Phokion, though forewarned, takes no precautions against it. — Mischief to the Athenians, as well as to Polysperchon, from Nikanor’s occupation of Peiræus; culpable negligence, and probable collusion, of Phokion. — Arrival of Alexander (son of Polysperchon): his treacherous policy to the Athenians; Kassander reaches Peiræus. — Intrigues of Phokion with Alexander — he tries to secure for himself the protection of Alexander against the Athenians. — Return of the deported exiles to Athens — public vote passed in the Athenian assembly against Phokion and his colleagues. Phokion leaves the city, is protected by Alexander, and goes to meet Polysperchon, in Phokis. — Agnonides and others are sent as deputies to Polysperchon, to accuse Phokion and to claim the benefit of the regal edict. — Agnonides and Phokion are heard before Polysperchon — Phokion and his colleagues are delivered up as prisoners to the Athenians. Phokion is conveyed as prisoner to Athens, and brought for trial before the assembly. Motion of his friends for exclusion of non-qualified persons. — Intense exasperation of the returned exiles against Phokion — grounds for that feeling. — Phokion is condemned to death — vindictive manifestation against him in the assembly, furious and unanimous. — Death of Phokion and his four colleagues. — Alteration of the sentiment of the Athenians towards Phokion, not long afterwards. Honors shown to his memory. — Explanation of this alteration. Kassander gets possession of Athens and restores the oligarchical or Phokionic party. — Life and character of Phokion. — War between Polysperchon and Kassander, in Attica and Peloponnesus. Polysperchon is repulsed in the siege of Megalopolis, and also defeated at sea. — Increased strength of Kassander in Greece — he gets possession of Athens. — Restoration of the oligarchical government at Athens, though in a mitigated form, under the Phalerean Demetrius. — Administration of the Phalerean Demetrius at Athens, in a moderate spirit. Census taken of the Athenian population — Kassander in Peloponnesus — many cities join him — the Spartans surround their city with walls. — Feud in the Macedonian imperial family — Olympias puts to death Philip Aridæus and Eurydikê — she reigns in Macedonia: her bloody revenge against the partisans of Antipater. — Kassander passes into Macedonia — defeats Olympias, and becomes master of the country — Olympias is besieged in Pydna, captured, and put to death. — Great power of Antigonus in Asia. Confederacy of Kassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleukus against him. — Kassander founds Kassandreia, and restores Thebes. — Measures of Antigonus against Kassander — he promises freedom to the Grecian cities — Ptolemy promises the like. Great power of Kassander in Greece. — Forces of Antigonus in Greece. Considerable success against Kassander. — Pacification between the belligerents. Grecian autonomy guaranteed in name by all. Kassander puts to death Roxana and her child. — Polysperchon espouses the pretensions of Herakles, son of Alexander, against Kassander. He enters into compact with Kassander, assassinates the young prince, and is recognized as ruler of Southern Greece. — Assassination of Kleopatra, last surviving relative of Alexander the Great, by Antigonus. — Ptolemy of Egypt in Greece — after some successes, he concludes a truce with Kassander. Passiveness of the Grecian cities. — Sudden arrival of Demetrius Poliorketes in Peiræus. The Athenians declare in his favor. Demetrius Phalereus retires to Egypt. Capture of Munychia and Megara. — Demetrius Poliorketes enters Athens in triumph. He promises restoration of the democracy. Extravagant votes of flattery passed by the Athenians towards him. Two new Athenian tribes created. — Alteration of tone and sentiment in Athens, during the last thirty years. — Contrast of Athens as proclaimed free by Demetrius Poliorketes, with Athens after the expulsion of Hippias. — Opposition made by Demochares, nephew of Demosthenes, to these obsequious public flatteries. — Demetrius Phalereus condemned in his absence. Honorable commemoration of the deceased orator Lykurgus. Restrictive law passed against the philosophers — they all leave Athens. The law is repealed next year, and the philosophers return to Athens. — Exploits of Demetrius Poliorketes. His long siege of Rhodes. Gallant and successful resistance of the citizens. — His prolonged war, and ultimate success in Greece, against Kassander. — Return of Demetrius Poliorketes to Athens — his triumphant reception — memorable Ithyphallic hymn addressed to him. — Helpless condition of the Athenians — proclaimed by themselves. — Idolatry shown to Demetrius at Athens. He is initiate in the Eleusinian mysteries, out of the regular season. — March of Demetrius into Thessaly — he passes into Asia and joins Antigonus — great battle of Ipsus, in which the four confederates completely defeat Antigonus, who is slain and his Asiatic power broken up and partitioned. — Restoration of the Kassandrian dominion in Greece. Lachares makes himself despot at Athens, under Kassander. Demetrius Poliorketes returns, and expels Lachares. He garrisons Peiræus and Munychia. — Death of Kassander. Bloody feuds among his family. — Demetrius acquires the crown of Macedonia. — Antigonus Gonatas (son of Demetrius) master of Macedonia and Greece. Permanent rule of the Antigonid dynasty in Macedonia, until the conquest of that country by the Romans. — Spirit of the Greeks broken — isolation of the cities from each other by Antigonus. — The Greece of Polybius cannot form a subject of history by itself, but only as an appendage to foreign neighbors. — Evidence of the political nullity of Athens — public decree in honor of Demochares — what acts are recorded as his titles to public gratitude. 331-393
XCVII. SICILIAN AND ITALIAN GREEKS — AGATHOKLES
Constitution established by Timoleon at Syracuse — afterwards exchanged for an oligarchy. — Italian Greeks — pressed upon by enemies from the interior — Archidamus king of Sparta slain in Italy. — Growth of the Molossian kingdom of Epirus, through Macedonian aid — Alexander the Molossian king brother of Olympias. — The Molossian Alexander crosses into Italy to assist the Tarentines. His exploits and death. — Assistance sent by the Syracusans to Kroton — first rise of Agathokles. — Agathokles distinguishes himself in the Syracusan expedition — he is disappointed of honors — becomes discontented and leaves Syracuse. — He levies a mercenary force — his exploits as general in Italy and Sicily. — Change of government at Syracuse — Agathokles is recalled — his exploits against the exiles — his dangerous character at home. — Farther internal changes at Syracuse — recall of the exiles — Agathokles readmitted — swears amnesty and fidelity. — Agathokles, in collusion with Hamilkar, arms his partisans at Syracuse, and perpetuates a sanguinary massacre of the citizens. — Agathokles is constituted sole despot of Syracuse. — His popular manners, military energy, and conquests. Progress of Agathokles in conquering Sicily. The Agrigentines take alarm and organize a defensive alliance against him. — They invite the Spartan Akrotatus to command — his bad conduct and failure. — Sicily the only place in which a glorious Hellenic career was open. Peace concluded by Agathokles with the Agrigentines — his great power in Sicily. — He is repulsed from Agrigentum — the Carthaginians send an armament to Sicily against him. — Position of the Carthaginians between Gela and Agrigentum — their army reinforced from home. — Operations of Agathokles against them — his massacre of citizens at Gela. — Battle of the Himera, between Agathokles and the Carthaginians. — Total defeat of Agathokles by the Carthaginians. — The Carthaginians recover a large part of Sicily from Agathokles. His depressed condition at Syracuse. — He conceives the plan of attacking the Carthaginians in Africa. — His energy and sagacity in organizing this expedition. His renewed massacre and spoliation. — He gets out of the harbor, in spite of the blockading fleet. Eclipse of the sun. He reaches Africa safely. — He burns his vessels — impressive ceremony for affecting this, under vow to Demeter. — Agathokles marches into the Carthaginian territory — captures Tunês — richness and cultivation of the country. — Consternation at Carthage — the city force marches out against him — Hanno and Bomilkar named generals. — Inferior numbers of Agathokles — his artifices to encourage the soldiers. — Treachery of the Carthaginian general Bomilkar — victory of Agathokles. — Conquests of Agathokles among the Carthaginian dependencies on the eastern coast — Religious terror and distress of the Carthaginians. Human sacrifice. — Operations of Agathokles on the eastern coast of Carthage — capture of Neapolis, Adrumetum, Thapsus, etc. — Agathokles fortifies Aspis — undertakes operations against the interior country — defeats the Carthaginians again. — Proceedings of Hamilkar before Syracuse — the city is near surrendering — he is disappointed, and marches away from it. — Renewed attack of Hamilkar upon Syracuse — he tries to surprise Euryalus, but is totally defeated, made prisoner, and slain. — The Agrigentines stand forward as champions of Sicilian freedom against Agathokles and the Carthaginians. — Mutiny in the army of Agathokles at Tunês — his great danger, and address in extricating himself. — Carthaginian army sent to act in the interior — attacked by Agathokles with some success — his camp is pillaged by the Numidians. — Agathokles invites the aid of Ophellas from Kyrênê. — Antecedent circumstances of Kyrênê. Division of coast between Kyrênê and Carthage. — Thimbron with the Harpalian mercenaries is invited over to Kyrênê by exiles. His checkered career, on the whole victorious, in Libya. — The Kyrenæans solicit aid from the Egyptian Ptolemy, who sends Ophellas thither. Defeat and death of Thimbron. Kyrenaica annexed to the dominions of Ptolemy, under Ophellas as viceroy. — Position and hopes of Ophellas. He accepts the invitation of Agathokles. He collects colonists from Athens and other Grecian cities. — March of Ophellas, with his army, and his colonists, from Kyrênê to the Carthaginian territory — sufferings endured in the march. — Perfidy of Agathokles — he kills Ophellas — gets possession of his army — ruin and dispersion of the colonists. — Terrible sedition at Carthage — Bomilkar tries to seize the supreme power — he is overthrown and slain. — Farther successes of Agathokles in Africa — he captures Utica, Hippo-Zarytus, and Hippagreta. — Agathokles goes to Sicily, leaving Archagathus to command in Africa. Successes of Archagathus in the interior country. — Redoubled efforts of the Carthaginians — they gain two great victories over Archagathus. — Danger of Archagathus — he is blocked up by the Carthaginians at Tunis. — Agathokles in Sicily. His career at first prosperous. Defeat of the Agrigentines. — Activity of Agathokles in Sicily — Deinokrates in great force against him. — Agrigentine army under Xenodokus — opposed to the mercenaries of Agathokles — superiority of the latter. — Defeat of Xenodokus by Leptines — Agathokles passes over into Africa — bad state of his army there — he is defeated by the Carthaginians. — Nocturnal panic and disorder in both camps. — Desperate condition of Agathokles — he deserts his army and escapes to Sicily. — The deserted army kill the two sons of Agathokles, and capitulate with the Carthaginians. — African expedition of Agathokles — boldness of the first conception — imprudently pushed and persisted in. — Proceedings of Agathokles in Sicily — his barbarities at Egesta and Syracuse. — Great mercenary force under Deinokrates in Sicily — Agathokles solicits peace from him, and is refused — he concludes peace with Carthage. — Battle of Torgium — victory of Agathokles over Deinokrates. — Accommodation and compact between Agathokles and Deinokrates. — Operations of Agathokles in Liparæ, Italy, and Korkyra — Kleonymus of Sparta. — Last projects of Agathokles — mutiny of his grandson Archagathus — sickness, poisoning, and death of Agathokles. — Splendid genius of action and resource — nefarious dispositions — of Agathokles. — Hellenic agency in Sicily continues during the life of Agathokles, but becomes then subordinate to preponderant foreigners. 393-452
Chapter XCVIII
OUTLYING HELLENIC CITIES. — 1. IN GAUL AND SPAIN. — 2. ON THE COAST OF THE EUXINE.
Massalia—its situation and circumstances.—Colonies planted by Massalia—Antipolis, Nikæa, Rhoda, Emporiæ—peculiar circumstances of Emporiæ.—Oligarchical government of Massalia—prudent political administration.—Hellenizing influence of Massalia in the West—Pytheas, the navigator and geographer.—Pontic Greeks—Pentapolis on the south-west coast.—Sinôpê—its envoys present with Darius in his last days—maintains its independence for some time against the Mithridatic princes—but become subject to them ultimately—The Pontic Herakleia—oligarchical government—the native Mariandyni reduced to serfs.—Political discord at Herakleia—banishment of Klearchus—partial democracy established.—Continued political troubles at Herakleia—assistance invoked from without.—Character and circumstances of Klearchus—he makes himself despot of Herakleia—his tyranny and cruelty.—He continues despot for twelve years—he is assassinated at a festival.—Satyrus becomes despot—his aggravated cruelty—his military vigor.—Despotism of Timotheus, just and mild—his energy and ability.—Despotism of Dionysius—his popular and vigorous government—his prudent dealing with the Macedonians, during the absence of Alexander in the East.—Return of Alexander to Susa—he is solicited by the Herakleotic exiles—anger of Dionysius, averted by the death of Alexander.—Prosperity and prudence of Dionysius—he marries Amastris—his favor with Antigonus—his death.—Amastris governs Herakleia—marries Lysimachus—is divorced from him—Klearchus and Oxathres kill Amastris—are killed by Lysimachus.—Arsinoê mistress of Herakleia. Defeat and death of Lysimachus. Power of Seleukus.—Herakleia emancipated from the despots, and a popular government established—recall of the exiles—bold bearing of the citizens towards Seleukus—death of Seleukus.—Situation and management of Herakleia as a free government—considerable naval power.—Prudent administration of Herakleia, as a free city, among the powerful princes of Asia Minor—general condition and influence of the Greek cities on the coast.—Grecian Pentapolis on the south-west of the Euxine—Ovid at Tomi.—Olbia—in the days of Herodotus and Ephorus—increased numbers, and multiplied inroads of the barbaric hordes.—Olbia in later days—decline of security and production.—Olbia pillaged and abandoned—afterwards renewed.—Visit of Dion the Rhetor—Hellenic tastes and manners—ardent interest in Homer.—Bosporus or Pantikapæum.—Princes of Bosporus—relations between Athens and Bosporus.—Nymphæum among the tributary cities under the Athenian empire—how it passed under the Bosporanic princes.—Alliance and reciprocal good offices between the Bosporanic princes Satyrus, Leukon, etc. and the Athenians. Immunities of trade granted to the Athenians.—Political condition of the Greeks of Bosporus—the princes called themselves archons—their empire over barbaric tribes.—Family feuds among the Bosporanic princes—war between Satyrus and Eumelus—death of Satyrus II.—Civil war between Prytanis and Eumelus—victory of Eumelus—he kills the wives, children, and friends, of his brother.—His victorious reign and conquests—his speedy death.—Decline of the Bosporanic dynasty, until it passed into the hands of Mithridates Eupator.—Monuments left by the Spartokid princes of Bosporus—sepulchral tumuli near Kertch (Pantikapæum).—Appendix on the Localities near Issus. 453-495
INDEX 497
HISTORY OF GREECE.
Chapter XCI
FIRST PERIOD OF THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT — SIEGE AND CAPTURE OF THEBES.
My last preceding volume ended with the assassination of Philip of Macedon, and the accession of his son Alexander the Great, then twenty years of age.
It demonstrates the altered complexion of Grecian history, that we are now obliged to seek for marking events in the succession to the Macedonian crown, or in the ordinances of Macedonian kings. In fact, the Hellenic world has ceased to be autonomous. In Sicily, indeed, the free and constitutional march, revived by Timoleon, is still destined to continue for a few years longer; but all the Grecian cities south of Mount Olympus have descended into dependents of Macedonia. Such dependence, established as a fact by the battle of Chæroneia and by the subsequent victorious march of Philip over Peloponnesus, was acknowledged in form by the vote of the Grecian synod at Corinth. While even the Athenians had been compelled to concur in submission, Sparta alone, braving all consequences, continued inflexible in her refusal. The adherence of Thebes was not trusted to the word of the Thebans, but ensured by the Macedonian garrison established in her citadel, called the Kadmeia. Each Hellenic city, small and great,—maritime, inland, and insular—(with the single exception of Sparta), was thus enrolled as a separate unit in the list of subject-allies attached to the imperial headship of Philip.
Under these circumstances, the history of conquered Greece loses its separate course, and becomes merged in that of conquering Macedonia. Nevertheless, there are particular reasons which constrain the historian of Greece to carry on the two together for a few years longer. First, conquered Greece exercised a powerful action on her conqueror—“Græcia capta ferum victorem cepit”. The Macedonians, though speaking a language of their own, had neither language for communicating with others, nor literature, nor philosophy, except Grecian and derived from Greeks. Philip, while causing himself to be chosen chief of Hellas, was himself not only partially hellenized, but an eager candidate for Hellenic admiration. He demanded the headship under the declared pretence of satisfying the old antipathy against Persia. Next, the conquests of Alexander, though essentially Macedonian, operated indirectly as the initiatory step of a series of events, diffusing Hellenic language (with some tinge of Hellenic literature) over a large breadth of Asia,—opening that territory to the better observation, in some degree even to the superintendence, of intelligent Greeks—and thus producing consequences important in many ways to the history of mankind. Lastly, the generation of free Greeks upon whom the battle of Chæroneia fell, were not disposed to lie quiet if any opportunity occurred for shaking off their Macedonian masters. The present volume will record the unavailing efforts made for this purpose, in which Demosthenes and most of the other leaders perished.
Alexander (born in July 356 B. C.), like his father Philip, was not a Greek, but a Macedonian and Epirot, partially imbued with Grecian sentiment and intelligence. It is true that his ancestors, some centuries before, had been emigrants from Argos; but the kings of Macedonia had long lost all trace of any such peculiarity as might originally have distinguished them from their subjects. The basis of Philip’s character was Macedonian, not Greek: it was the self-will of a barbarian prince, not the ingenium civile, or sense of reciprocal obligation and right in society with others, which marked more or less even the most powerful members of a Grecian city, whether oligarchical or democratical. If this was true of Philip, it was still more true of Alexander, who inherited the violent temperament and headstrong will of his furious Epirotic mother Olympias.
A kinsman of Olympias, named Leonidas, and an Akarnanian named Lysimachus, are mentioned as the chief tutors to whom Alexander’s childhood was entrusted.[1] Of course the Iliad of Homer was among the first things which he learnt as a boy. Throughout most of his life, he retained a passionate interest in this poem, a copy of which, said to have been corrected by Aristotle, he carried with him in his military campaigns. We are not told, nor is it probable, that he felt any similar attachment for the less warlike Odyssey. Even as a child, he learnt to identify himself in sympathy with Achilles,—his ancestor by the mother’s side, according to the Æakid pedigree. The tutor Lysimachus won his heart by calling himself Phœnix—Alexander, Achilles—and Philip, by the name of Peleus. Of Alexander’s boyish poetical recitations, one anecdote remains, both curious and of unquestionable authenticity. He was ten years old, when the Athenian legation, including both Æschines and Demosthenes, came to Pella to treat about peace. While Philip entertained them at table, in his usual agreeable and convivial manner, the boy Alexander recited for their amusement certain passages of poetry which he had learnt—and delivered, in response with another boy, a dialogue out of one of the Grecian dramas.[2]
[1] Plutarch, Alexand. c. 5, 6.
[2] Æschines cont. Timarch. p. 167.
At the age of thirteen, Alexander was placed under the instruction of Aristotle, whom Philip expressly invited for the purpose, and whose father Nikomachus had been both friend and physician of Philip’s father Amyntas. What course of study Alexander was made to go through, we unfortunately cannot state. He enjoyed the teaching of Aristotle for at least three years, and we are told that he devoted himself to it with ardor, contracting a strong attachment to his preceptor. His powers of addressing an audience, though not so well attested as those of his father, were always found sufficient for his purpose: moreover, he retained, even in the midst of his fatiguing Asiatic campaigns, an interest in Greek literature and poetry.
At what precise moment, during the lifetime of his father, Alexander first took part in active service, we do not know. It is said that once, when quite a youth, he received some Persian envoys during the absence of his father; and that he surprised them by the maturity of his demeanor, as well as by the political bearing and pertinence of his questions.[3] Though only sixteen years of age, in 340 B. C., he was left at home as regent while Philip was engaged in the sieges of Byzantium and Perinthus. He put down a revolt of the neighboring Thracian tribe called Mædi, took one of their towns, and founded it anew under the title of Alexandria; the earliest town which bore that name, afterwards applied to so many other towns planted by him. In the march of Philip into Greece (338 B. C.), Alexander took part, commanded one of the wings at the battle of Chæroneia, and is said to have first gained the advantage on his side over the Theban sacred band.[4]
[3] Plutarch, Alex. 5.
[4] Plutarch, Alex. 9. Justin says that Alexander was the companion of his father during part of the war in Thrace (ix. 1).
Yet notwithstanding such marks of confidence and coöperation, other incidents occurred producing bitter animosity between the father and the son. By his wife Olympias, Philip had as offspring Alexander and Kleopatra: by a Thessalian mistress named Philinna, he had a son named Aridæus (afterwards called Philip Aridæus:) he had also daughters named Kynna (or Kynanê) and Thessalonikê. Olympias, a woman of sanguinary and implacable disposition, had rendered herself so odious to him, that he repudiated her, and married a new wife named Kleopatra. I have recounted in the preceding volume[5] the indignation felt by Alexander at this proceeding, and the violent altercation which occurred during the conviviality of the marriage banquet; where Philip actually snatched his sword, threatened his son’s life, and was only prevented from executing the threat by falling down through intoxication. After this quarrel, Alexander retired from Macedonia, conducting his mother to her brother Alexander king of Epirus. A son was born to Philip by Kleopatra. Her brother or uncle Attalus acquired high favor. Her kinsmen and partisans generally were also promoted, while Ptolemy, Nearchus, and other persons attached to Alexander, were banished.[6]
[5] Vol. XI. Ch. xc. p. 513.
[6] Plutarch, Alex. 10. Arrian, iii. 6, 8.
The prospects of Alexander were thus full of uncertainty and peril, up to the very day of Philip’s assassination. The succession to the Macedonian crown, though transmitted in the same family, was by no means assured as to individual members; moreover, in the regal house of Macedonia[7] (as among the kings called Diadochi, who acquired dominion after the death of Alexander the Great), violent feuds and standing mistrust between father, sons, and brethren, were ordinary phænomena, to which the family of the Antigonids formed an honorable exception. Between Alexander and Olympias on the one side, and Kleopatra with her son and Attalus on the other, a murderous contest was sure to arise. Kleopatra was at this time in the ascendent; Olympias was violent and mischievous; and Philip was only forty-seven years of age. Hence the future threatened nothing but aggravated dissension and difficulties for Alexander. Moreover his strong will and imperious temper, eminently suitable for supreme command, disqualified him from playing a subordinate part, even to his own father. The prudence of Philip, when about to depart on his Asiatic expedition, induced him to attempt to heal these family dissensions by giving his daughter Kleopatra in marriage to her uncle Alexander of Epirus, brother of Olympias. It was during the splendid marriage festival, then celebrated at Ægæ, that he was assassinated—Olympias, Kleopatra, and Alexander, being all present, while Attalus was in Asia, commanding the Macedonian division sent forward in advance, jointly with Parmenio. Had Philip escaped this catastrophe, he would doubtless have carried on the war in Asia Minor with quite as much energy and skill as it was afterwards prosecuted by Alexander: though we may doubt whether the father would have stretched out to those ulterior undertakings which, gigantic and far-reaching as they were, fell short of the insatiable ambition of the son. But successful as Philip might have been in Asia, he would hardly have escaped gloomy family feuds; with Alexander as a mutinous son, under the instigations of Olympias,—and with Kleopatra on the other side, feeling that her own safety depended upon the removal of regal or quasi-regal competitors.
[7] See the third chapter of Plutarch’s life of Demetrius Poliorkêtês; which presents a vivid description of the feelings prevalent between members of regal families in those ages. Demetrius, coming home from the chase with his hunting javelins in his hand, goes up to his father Antigonus, salutes him, and sits down by his side without disarming. This is extolled as an unparalleled proof of the confidence and affection subsisting between the father and the son. In the families of all the other Diadochi (says Plutarch) murders of sons, mothers, and wives, were frequent—murders of brothers were even common, assumed to be precautions necessary for security. Οὕτως ἄρα πάντη δυσκωνοίνητον ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ μεστὸν ἀπιστίας καὶ δυσνοίας, ὥστε ἀγάλλεσθαι τὸν μέγιστον τῶν Ἀλεξάνδρου διαδόχων καὶ πρεσβύτατον, ὅτι μὴ φοβεῖται τὸν υἱὸν, ἀλλὰ προσίεται τὴν λόγχην ἔχοντα τοῦ σώματος πλήσιον. Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ μόνος, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ~ὁ οἶκος οὗτος~ ἐπὶ πλείστας διαδοχὰς τῶν τοιούτων κακῶν ἐκαθάρευσε, μᾶλλον δὲ ~εἷς μόνος~ τῶν ἀπ᾽ Ἀντιγόνου Φίλιππος ἀνεῖλεν υἱόν. ~Αἱ δὲ ἄλλαι σχεδὸν ἁπᾶσαι~ διαδοχαὶ πολλῶν μὲν ἔχουσι παίδων, πολλῶν δὲ μητέρων φόνους καὶ γυναικῶν· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀδελφοὺς ἀναιρεῖν, ὥσπερ οἱ γεωμέτραι τὰ αἰτήματα λαμβάνουσιν, οὕτω ~συνεχωρεῖτο κοινόν τι νομιζόμενον αἴτημα καὶ βασιλικὸν~ ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας.
Compare Tacitus, Histor. v. 8, about the family feuds of the kings of Judæa; and Xenoph. Hieron. iii. 8.
In noticing the Antigonid family as a favorable exception, we must confine our assertion to the first century of that family. The bloody tragedy of Perseus and Demetrius shortly preceded the ruin of the empire.
From such formidable perils, visible in the distance, if not immediately impending, the sword of Pausanias guaranteed both Alexander and the Macedonian kingdom. But at the moment when the blow was struck, and when the Lynkestian Alexander, one of those privy to it, ran to forestall resistance and place the crown on the head of Alexander the Great[8]—no one knew what to expect from the young prince thus suddenly exalted at the age of twenty years. The sudden death of Philip in the fulness of glory and ambitious hopes, must have produced the strongest impression, first upon the festive crowd assembled,—next throughout Macedonia,—lastly, upon the foreigners whom he had reduced to dependence, from the Danube to the borders of Pæonia. All these dependencies were held only by the fear of Macedonian force. It remained to be proved whether the youthful son of Philip was capable of putting down opposition and upholding the powerful organization created by his father. Moreover Perdikkas, the elder brother and predecessor of Philip, had left a son named Amyntas, now at least twenty-four years of age, to whom many looked as the proper successor.[9]
[8] Arrian, i. 25, 2; Justin, xi. 2. See Vol. XI. p. 517.
[9] Arrian, De Rebus post Alexandrum, Fragm. ap. Photium, cod. 92. p. 220; Plutarch, De Fortunâ Alex. Magn. p. 327. πᾶσα δὲ ὕπουλος ἦν ἡ Μακεδονία (after the death of Philip) πρὸς Ἀμύνταν ἀποβλέπουσα καὶ τοὺς Ἀερόπου παῖδας.
But Alexander, present and proclaimed at once by his friends, showed himself both in word and deed, perfectly competent to the emergency. He mustered, caressed, and conciliated, the divisions of the Macedonian army and the chief officers. His addresses were judicious and energetic, engaging that the dignity of the kingdom should be maintained unimpaired,[10] and that even the Asiatic projects already proclaimed should be prosecuted with as much vigor as if Philip still lived.
[10] Diod. xvii. 2.
It was one of the first measures of Alexander to celebrate with magnificent solemnities the funeral of his deceased father. While the preparations for it were going on, he instituted researches to find out and punish the accomplices of Pausanias. Of these indeed, the most illustrious person mentioned to us—Olympias—was not only protected by her position from punishment, but retained great ascendency over her son to the end of his life. Three other persons are mentioned by name as accomplices—brothers and persons of good family from the district of Upper Macedonia called Lynkêstis—Alexander, Heromenes, and Arrhabæus, sons of Aëropus. The two latter were put to death, but the first of the three was spared, and even promoted to important charges, as a reward for his useful forwardness in instantly saluting Alexander king.[11] Others also, we know not how many, were executed; and Alexander seems to have imagined that there still remained some undetected.[12] The Persian king boasted in public letters,[13] with how much truth we cannot say, that he too had been among the instigators of Pausanias.
[11] Arrian, i. 25, 2; Curtius, vii. 1, 6. Alexander son of Aëropus was son-in-law of Antipater. The case of this Alexander—and of Olympias—afforded a certain basis to those who said (Curtius, vi. 43) that Alexander had dealt favorably with the accomplices of Pausanias.
[12] Plutarch, Alexand. 10-27; Diodor. xvii. 51; Justin, xi. 11.
[13] Arrian, ii. 14, 10.
Among the persons slain about this time by Alexander, we may number his first-cousin and brother-in-law Amyntas—son of Perdikkas (the elder brother of the deceased Philip): Amyntas was a boy when his father Perdikkas died. Though having a preferable claim to the succession, according to usage, he had been put aside by his uncle Philip, on the ground of his age and of the strenuous efforts required on commencing a new reign. Philip had however given in marriage to this Amyntas his daughter (by an Illyrian mother) Kynna. Nevertheless, Alexander now put him to death,[14] on accusation of conspiracy: under what precise circumstances, does not appear—but probably Amyntas (who besides being the son of Philip’s elder brother, was at least twenty-four years of age, while Alexander was only twenty) conceived himself as having a better right to the succession, and was so conceived by many others. The infant son of Kleopatra by Philip is said to have been killed by Alexander, as a rival in the succession; Kleopatra herself was afterwards put to death by Olympias during his absence, and to his regret. Attalus, also, uncle of Kleopatra and joint commander of the Macedonian army in Asia, was assassinated under the private orders of Alexander, by Hekatæus and Philotas.[15] Another Amyntas, son of Antiochus (there seems to have been several Macedonians named Amyntas) fled for safety into Asia:[16] probably others, who felt themselves to be objects of suspicion, did the like—since by the Macedonian custom, not merely a person convicted of high treason, but all his kindred along with him, were put to death.[17]
[14] Curtius, vi. 9, 17. vi. 10, 24. Arrian mentioned this Amyntas son of Perdikkas (as well as the fact of his having been put to death by Alexander before the Asiatic expedition), in the lost work τὰ μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον—see Photius Cod. 92. p. 220. But Arrian, in his account of Alexander’s expedition, does not mention the fact; which shows that his silence is not to be assumed as a conclusive reason for discrediting allegations of others.
Compare Polyænus, v. 60; and Plutarch, Fort. Alex. Magn. p. 327.
It was during this expedition into Thrace and Illyria, about eight months after his accession, that Alexander promised to give his sister Kynna in marriage to Langarus prince of the Agrianes (Arrian, Exp. Al. M. i. 5, 7). Langarus died of sickness soon after; so that this marriage never took place. But when the promise was made, Kynna must have been a widow. Her husband Amyntas must therefore have been put to death during the first months of Alexander’s reign.
[15] See my last preceding volume, Chap. xc. p. 518; Diod. xvii. 2; Curtius, vii. 1, 6; Justin, ix. 7 xi. 2. xii. 6; Plutarch, Alexand. 10; Pausanias, viii. 7, 5.
[16] Arrian, i. 17 10; Plutarch, Alex. 20, Curtius, iii. 28, 18.
[17] Curtius, vi. 42, 20. Compare with this custom, a passage in the Ajax of Sophokles, v. 725.
By unequivocal manifestations of energy and address, and by despatching rivals or dangerous malcontents, Alexander thus speedily fortified his position on the throne at home. But from the foreign dependents of Macedonia—Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians—the like acknowledgment was not so easily obtained. Most of them were disposed to throw off the yoke; yet none dared to take the initiative of moving, and the suddenness of Philip’s death found them altogether unprepared for combination. By that event the Greeks were discharged from all engagement, since the vote of the confederacy had elected him personally as Imperator. They were now at liberty, in so far as there was any liberty at all in the proceeding, to elect any one else, or to abstain from reëlecting at all, and even to let the confederacy expire. Now it was only under constraint and intimidation, as was well known both in Greece and Macedonia, that they had conferred this dignity even on Philip—who had earned it by splendid exploits, and had proved himself the ablest captain and politician of the age. They were by no means inclined to transfer it to a youth like Alexander, until he had shown himself capable of bringing the like coercion to bear, and extorting the same submission. The wish to break loose from Macedonia, widely spread throughout the Grecian cities, found open expression from Demosthenes and others in the assembly at Athens. That orator (if we are to believe his rival Æschines), having received private intelligence of the assassination of Philip, through certain spies of Charidemus, before it was publicly known to others—pretended to have had it revealed to him in a dream by the gods. Appearing in the assembly with his gayest attire, he congratulated his countrymen on the death of their greatest enemy, and pronounced high encomiums on the brave tyrannicide of Pausanias, which he would probably compare to that of Harmodius and Aristogeiton.[18] He depreciated the abilities of Alexander, calling him Margites (the name of a silly character in one of the Homeric poems), and intimating that he would be too much distracted with embarrassments and ceremonial duties at home, to have leisure for a foreign march.[19] Such, according to Æschines, was the language of Demosthenes on the first news of Philip’s death. We cannot doubt that the public of Athens, as well as Demosthenes, felt great joy at an event which seemed to open to them fresh chances of freedom, and that the motion for a sacrifice of thanksgiving,[20] in spite of Phokion’s opposition, was readily adopted. But though the manifestation of sentiment at Athens was thus anti-Macedonian, exhibiting aversion to the renewal of that obedience which had been recently promised to Philip, Demosthenes did not go so far as to declare any positive hostility.[21] He tried to open communication with the Persians in Asia Minor, and also, if we may believe Diodorus, with the Macedonian commander in Asia Minor, Attalus. But neither of the two missions was successful. Attalus sent his letter to Alexander; while the Persian king,[22] probably relieved by the death of Philip from immediate fear of Macedonian power, despatched a peremptory refusal to Athens, intimating that he would furnish no more money.[23]
[18] Æschines adv. Ktesiphont. c. 29. p. 469. c. 78 p. 608; Plutarch, Demosth. 22.
[19] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 547. c. 50.
[20] Plutarch, Phokion, 16.
[21] We gather this from Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 551. c. 52.
[22] Diodorus (xvii. 5) mentions this communication of Demosthenes to Attalus; which, however, I cannot but think improbable. Probably Charidemus was the organ of the communications.
[23] This letter from Darius is distinctly alluded to, and even a sentence cited from it, by Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 633, 634. c. 88. We know that Darius wrote in very different language not long afterwards, near the time when Alexander crossed into Asia (Arrian, ii. 14, 11). The first letter must have been sent shortly after Philip’s death, when Darius was publicly boasting of having procured the deed, and before he had yet learnt to fear Alexander. Compare Diodor. xvii. 7.
Not merely in Athens, but in other Grecian States also, the death of Philip excited aspirations for freedom. The Lacedæmonians, who, though unsupported, had stood out inflexibly against any obedience to him, were now on the watch for new allies; while the Arcadians, Argeians, and Eleians, manifested sentiments adverse to Macedonia. The Ambrakiots expelled the garrison placed by Philip in their city; the Ætolians passed a vote to assist in restoring those Akarnanian exiles whom he had banished.[24] On the other hand, the Thessalians manifested unshaken adherence to Macedonia. But the Macedonian garrison at Thebes, and the macedonizing Thebans who now governed that city,[25] were probably the main obstacles to any combined manifestation in favor of Hellenic autonomy.
[24] Diodor. xvii. 3.
[25] Diodorus (xvii. 3) says that the Thebans passed a vote to expel the Macedonian garrison in the Kadmeia. But I have little hesitation in rejecting this statement. We may be sure that the presence of the Macedonian garrison was connected with the predominance in the city of a party favorable to Macedonia. In the ensuing year, when the resistance really occurred, this was done by the anti-Macedonian party, who then got back from exile.
Apprised of these impulses prevalent throughout the Grecian world, Alexander felt the necessity of checking them by a demonstration immediate, as well as intimidating. The energy and rapidity of his proceedings speedily overawed all those who had speculated on his youth, or had adopted the epithets applied to him by Demosthenes. Having surmounted, in a shorter time than was supposed possible, the difficulties of his newly-acquired position at home, he marched into Greece at the head of a formidable army, seemingly about two months after the death of Philip. He was favorably received by the Thessalians, who passed a vote constituting Alexander head of Greece in place of his father Philip; which vote was speedily confirmed by the Amphiktyonic assembly, convoked at Thermopylæ. Alexander next advanced to Thebes, and from thence over the isthmus of Corinth into Peloponnesus. The details of his march we do not know; but his great force, probably not inferior to that which had conquered at Chæroneia, spread terror everywhere, silencing all except his partisans. Nowhere was the alarm greater than at Athens. The Athenians recollecting both the speeches of their orators and the votes of their assembly,—offensive at least, if not hostile, to the Macedonians—trembled lest the march of Alexander should be directed against their city, and accordingly made preparation for standing a siege. All citizens were enjoined to bring in their families and properties from the country, insomuch that the space within the walls was full both of fugitives and of cattle.[26] At the same time, the assembly adopted, on the motion of Demades, a resolution of apology and full submission to Alexander: they not only recognized him as chief of Greece, but conferred upon him divine honors, in terms even more emphatic than those bestowed on Philip.[27] The mover, with other legates, carried the resolution to Alexander, whom they found at Thebes, and who accepted their submission. A young speaker named Pytheas is said to have opposed the vote in the Athenian assembly.[28] Whether Demosthenes did the like—or whether, under the feeling of disappointed anticipations and overwhelming Macedonian force, he condemned himself to silence,—we cannot say. That he did not go with Demades on the mission to Alexander, seems a matter of course, though he is said to have been appointed by public vote to do so, and to have declined the duty. He accompanied the legation as far as Mount Kithæron, on the frontier, and then returned to Athens.[29] We read with astonishment that Æschines and his other enemies denounced this step as a cowardly desertion. No envoy could be so odious to Alexander, or so likely to provoke refusal for the proposition which he carried, as Demosthenes. To employ him in such a mission would have been absurd; except for the purpose probably intended by his enemies, that he might be either detained by the conqueror as an expiatory victim,[30] or sent back as a pardoned and humiliated prisoner.
[26] Demadis Fragment. ὑπὲρ τῆς δωδεκαετίας, p. 180.
[27] Arrian, i. 1, 4.
[28] Plutarch, Reipub. Ger. Præcept. p. 804.
[29] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 564. c. 50; Deinarchus cont. Demosth. p. 57; Diodor. xvii. 4; Plutarch, Demosth. c. 23 (Plutarch confounds the proceedings of this year with those of the succeeding year). Demades, in the fragment of his oration remaining to us, makes no allusion to this proceeding of Demosthenes.
The decree, naming Demosthenes among the envoys, is likely enough to have been passed chiefly by the votes of his enemies. It was always open to an Athenian citizen to accept or decline such an appointment.
[30] Several years afterwards, Demades himself was put to death by Antipater, to whom he had been sent as envoy from Athens (Diodor. xviii. 48).
After displaying his force in various portions of Peloponnesus, Alexander returned to Corinth, where he convened deputies from the Grecian cities generally. The list of those cities which obeyed the summons is not before us, but probably it included nearly all the cities of Central Greece. We know only that the Lacedæmonians continued to stand aloof, refusing all concurrence. Alexander asked from the assembled deputies the same appointment which the victorious Philip had required and obtained two years before—the hegemony or headship of the Greeks collectively for the purpose of prosecuting war against Persia.[31] To the request of a prince at the head of an irresistible army, one answer only was admissible. He was nominated Imperator with full powers, by land and sea. Overawed by the presence and sentiment of Macedonian force, all acquiesced in this vote except the Lacedæmonians.
[31] Arrian, i. 1, 2. αἰτεῖν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς Πέρσας στρατείας, ἥντινα Φιλίππῳ ἤδη ἔδοσαν· καὶ αἰτήσαντα λαβεῖν παρὰ πάντων, πλὴν Λακεδαιμονίων, etc.
Arrian speaks as if this request had been addressed only to the Greeks within Peloponnesus; moreover he mentions no assembly at Corinth, which is noticed (though with some confusion) by Diodorus, Justin, and Plutarch. Cities out of Peloponnesus, as well as within it, must have been included; unless we suppose that the resolution of the Amphiktyonic assembly, which had been previously passed, was held to comprehend all the extra-Peloponnesian cities, which seems not probable.
The convention sanctioned by Alexander was probably the same as that settled by and with his father Philip. Its grand and significant feature was, that it recognized Hellas as a confederacy under the Macedonian prince as imperator, president, or executive head and arm. It crowned him with a legal sanction as keeper of the peace within Greece, and conqueror abroad in the name of Greece. Of its other conditions, some are made known to us by subsequent complaints; such conditions as, being equitable and tutelary towards the members generally, the Macedonian chief found it inconvenient to observe, and speedily began to violate. Each Hellenic city was pronounced, by the first article of the convention, to be free and autonomous. In each, the existing political constitution was recognized as it stood; all other cities were forbidden to interfere with it, or to second any attack by its hostile exiles.[32] No new despot was to be established; no dispossessed despot was to be restored.[33] Each city became bound to discourage in every other, as far as possible, all illegal violence—such as political executions, confiscation, spoliation, redivision of land or abolition of debts, factious manumission of slaves, etc.[34] To each was guaranteed freedom of navigation; maritime capture was prohibited, on pain of enmity from all.[35] Each was forbidden to send armed vessels into the harbor of any other, or to build vessels or engage seamen there.[36] By each, an oath was taken to observe these conditions, to declare war against all who violated them, and to keep them inscribed on a commemorative column. Provision seems to have been made for admitting any additional city[37] on its subsequent application, though it might not have been a party to the original contract. Moreover, it appears that a standing military force, under Macedonian orders, was provided to enforce observance of the convention; and that the synod of deputies was contemplated as likely to meet periodically.[38]
[32] Demosthenes (or Pseudo-Demosthenes), Orat. xvii. De Fœdere Alexandrino, p. 213, 214. ἐπιτάττει ἡ συνθήκη εὐθὺς ἐν ἀρχῇ, ἐλευθέρους εἶναι καὶ αὐτονόμους τοὺς Ἕλληνας.—Ἐστὶ γὰρ γεγραμμένον, ἐάν τινες τὰς πολιτείας τὰς παρ᾽ ἑκάστοις οὔσας, ὅτε τοὺς ὅρκους τοὺς περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης ὤμνυσαν, καταλύσωσι, πολεμίους εἶναι πᾶσι τοῖς τῆς εἰρήνης μετέχουσιν....
[33] Demosthen. Orat. de Fœdere Alex. p. 213.
[34] Demosth. ib. p 215.
[35] Demosth. ib. p. 217. ἔστι γὰρ δήπου ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις, τὴν θάλατταν πλεῖν τοὺς μετέχοντας τῆς εἰρήνης, καὶ μηδένα κωλύειν αὐτοὺς μηδὲ κατάγειν πλοῖον μηδενὸς τούτων· ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτα ποιῇ, πολέμιον εἶναι πᾶσι τοῖς τῆς εἰρήνης μετέχουσιν....
[36] Demosth. ib. p. 218, 219. Böhnecke, in his instructive comments on this convention (Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Attischen Redner, p. 623), has treated the prohibition here mentioned as if it were one specially binding the Macedonians not to sail with armed ships into the Peiræus. This undoubtedly is the particular case on which the orator insists; but I conceive it to have been only a particular case under a general prohibitory rule.
[37] Arrian, ii. 1, 7; ii. 2, 4. Demosth. de Fœd. Alex, p. 213. Tenedos, Mitylênê, Antissa, and Eresus, can hardly have been members of the convention when first sworn.
[38] Demosth. Orat. de Fœd. Alex. p. 215. ἐστὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις ἐπιμελεῖσθαι ~τοὺς συνεδρεύοντας καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τῇ κοινῇ φυλακῇ τεταγμένους~, ὅπως ἐν ταῖς κοινωνούσαις πόλεσι μὴ γίγνωνται θάνατοι μηδὲ φυγαὶ παρὰ τοὺς κειμένους ταῖς πόλεσι νόμους.... Οἱ δὲ τοσοῦτον δέουσι τούτων τι κωλύειν, ὥστε καὶ συγκατασκευάζουσιν, etc. (p. 216).
The persons designated by οἱ δὲ, and denounced throughout this oration generally, are, Alexander or the Macedonian officers and soldiers.
A passage in Deinarchus cont. Demosth. p. 14, leads to the supposition, that a standing Macedonian force was kept at Corinth, occupying the Isthmus. The Thebans, however, declared against Macedonia (in August or September 335 B. C.), and proceeding to besiege the Macedonian garrison in the Kadmeia, sent envoys to entreat aid from the Arcadians. “These envoys (says Deinarchus) got with difficulty by sea to the Arcadians”—οἳ κατὰ θάλασσαν ~μόλις~ ἀφίκοντο πρὸς ἐκείνους. Whence should this difficulty arise, except from a Macedonian occupation of Corinth?
Such was the convention, in so far as we know its terms, agreed to by the Grecian deputies at Corinth with Alexander; but with Alexander at the head of an irresistible army. He proclaimed it as the “public statute of the Greeks”,[39] constituting a paramount obligation, of which he was the enforcer, binding on all, and authorizing him to treat all transgressors as rebels. It was set forth as counterpart of, and substitute for, the convention of Antalkidas, which we shall presently see the officers of Darius trying to revive against him—the headship of Persia against that of Macedonia. Such is the melancholy degradation of the Grecian World, that its cities have no alternative except to choose between these two foreign potentates—or to invite the help of Darius, the most distant and least dangerous, whose headship could hardly be more than nominal, against a neighbor sure to be domineering and compressive, and likely enough to be tyrannical. Of the once powerful Hellenic chiefs and competitors—Sparta, Athens, Thebes—under each of whom the Grecian world had been upheld as an independent and self-determining aggregate, admitting the free play of native sentiment and character, under circumstances more or less advantageous—the two last are now confounded as common units (one even held under garrison) among the subject allies of Alexander; while Sparta preserves only the dignity of an isolated independence.
[39] Arrian, i. 16, 10. παρὰ τὰ κοινῇ δόξαντα τοῖς Ἕλλησιν. After the death of Darius, Alexander pronounced that the Grecian mercenaries who had been serving with that prince, were highly criminal for having contravened the general vote of the Greeks (παρὰ τὰ δόγματα τὰ Ἑλλήνων), except such as had taken service before that vote was passed, and except the Sinopeans, whom Alexander considered as subjects of Persia and not partakers τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἑλλήνων (Arrian, iii. 23, 15; iii. 24, 8, 9).
It appears that during the nine months which succeeded the swearing of the convention, Alexander and his officers (after his return to Macedonia) were active, both by armed force and by mission of envoys, in procuring new adhesions and in re-modelling the governments of various cities suitably to their own views. Complaints of such aggressions were raised in the public assembly of Athens, the only place in Greece where any liberty of discussion still survived. An oration, pronounced by Demosthenes, Hyperides, or one of the contemporary, anti-Macedonian politicians (about the spring or early summer of 335 B. C.),[40] imparts to us some idea both of the Macedonian interventions steadily going on, and of the unavailing remonstrances raised against them by individual Athenian citizens. At the time of this oration, such remonstrances had already been often repeated. They were always met by the macedonizing Athenians with peremptory declarations that the convention must be observed. But in reply, the remonstrants urged, that it was unfair to call upon Athens for strict observance of the convention, while the Macedonians and their partisans in the various cities were perpetually violating it for their own profit. Alexander and his officers (affirms this orator) had never once laid down their arms since the convention was settled. They had been perpetually tampering with the governments of the various cities, to promote their own partisans to power.[41] In Messênê, Sikyon, and Pellênê, they had subverted the popular constitutions, banished many citizens, and established friends of their own as despots. The Macedonian force, destined as a public guarantee to enforce the observance of the convention, had been employed only to overrule its best conditions, and to arm the hands of factious partisans.[42] Thus Alexander in his capacity of Imperator, disregarding all the restraints of the convention, acted as chief despot for the maintenance of subordinate despots in the separate cities.[43] Even at Athens, this imperial authority had rescinded sentences of the dikastery, and compelled the adoption of measures contrary to the laws and constitution.[44]
[40] This is the oration περὶ τῶν πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον συνθηκῶν already more than once alluded to above. Though standing among the Demosthenic works, it is supposed by Libanius as well as by most modern critics not to be the production of Demosthenes—upon internal grounds of style, which are certainly forcible. Libanius says that it bears much resemblance to the style of Hyperides. At any rate, there seems no reason to doubt that it is a genuine oration of one of the contemporary orators. I agree with Böhnecke (Forschungen, p. 629) in thinking that it must have been delivered a few months after the convention with Alexander, before the taking of Thebes.
[41] Demosthenes (or Pseudo-Demosth.), Orat. De Fœdere Alex. p. 216. Οὕτω μὲν τοίνυν ῥᾳδίως τὰ ὅπλα ἐπήνεγκε ὁ Μακεδὼν, ὥστε οὐδὲ κατέθετο πώποτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι καὶ νῦν περιέρχεται καθ᾽ ὅσον δύναται, etc.
[42] Demosth. ib. p. 214, 215.
[43] Demosth. (or Pseudo-Demosth.) Orat. De Fœdere Alex. p. 212, 214, 215, 220, where the orator speaks of Alexander as the τύραννος of Greece.
The orator argues (p. 213) that the Macedonians had recognized despotism as contrary to the convention, in so far as to expel the despots from the towns of Antissa and Eresus in Lesbos. But probably these despots were in correspondence with the Persians on the opposite mainland, or with Memnon.
[44] Demosth. ib. p. 215. τοὺς δ᾽ ἰδίους ὑμᾶς νόμους ἀναγκάζουσι λύειν, τοὺς μὲν κεκριμένους ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις ἀφιέντες, ἕτερα δὲ παμπλήθη τοιαῦτα βιαζόμενοι παρανομεῖν....
At sea, the wrongful aggressions of Alexander or his officers had been not less manifest than on land. The convention, guaranteeing to all cities the right of free navigation, distinctly forbade each to take or detain vessels belonging to any other. Nevertheless the Macedonians had seized, in the Hellespont, all the merchantmen coming out with cargoes from the Euxine, and carried them into Tenedos, where they were detained, under various fraudulent pretences, in spite of remonstrances from the proprietors and cities whose supply of corn was thus intercepted. Among these sufferers, Athens stood conspicuous; since consumers of imported corn, ship-owners, and merchants, were more numerous there than elsewhere. The Athenians, addressing complaints and remonstrances without effect, became at length so incensed, and perhaps uneasy about their provisions, that they passed a decree to equip and despatch 100 triremes, appointing Menestheus (son of Iphikrates) admiral. By this strenuous manifestation, the Macedonians were induced to release the detained vessels. Had the detention been prolonged, the Athenian fleet would have sailed to extort redress by force; so that, as Athens was more than a match for Macedon on sea, the maritime empire of the latter would have been overthrown, while even on land much encouragement would have been given to malcontents against it.[45] Another incident had occurred, less grave than this, yet still dwelt upon by the orator as an infringement of the convention, and as an insult to Athenians. Though an express article of the convention prohibited armed ships of one city from entering the harbor of another, still a Macedonian trireme had been sent into Pieræus to ask permission that smaller vessels might be built there for Macedonian account. This was offensive to a large proportion of Athenians, not only as violating the convention, but as a manifest step towards employing the nautical equipments and seamen of Athens for the augmentation of the Macedonian navy.[46]
[45] Demosth. (or Pseudo-Demosth.) Orat. De Fœdere Alex. p. 217. εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπεροψίας ἦλθον, ὥστε εἰς Τένεδον ἅπαντα τὰ ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου πλοῖα κατήγαγον, καὶ σκευωρούμενοι περὶ αὐτὰ οὐ πρότερον ἀφεῖσαν, πρὶν ὑμεῖς ἐψηφίσασθε τριήρεις ἕκατον πληροῦν καὶ καθέλκειν εὐθὺς τότε—ὃ παρ᾽ ἐλάχιστον ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς ἀφαιρεθῆναι δικαίως τὴν κατὰ θάλασσαν ἡγεμονίαν.... p. 218. Ἕως γὰρ ἂν ἐξῇ τῶν κατὰ θάλασσαν καὶ μόνοις ἀναμφισβητήτως εἶναι κυρίοις (the Athenians), τοῖς γε κατὰ γῆν πρὸς τῇ ὑπαρχούσῃ δυνάμει ἐστὶ προβολὰς ἑτέρας ἰσχυροτέρας εὑρέσθαι, etc.
We know that Alexander caused a squadron of ships to sail round to and up the Danube from Byzantium (Arrian, i. 3, 3), to meet him after his march by land from the southern coast of Thrace. It is not improbable that the Athenian vessels detained may have come loaded with a supply of corn, and that the detention of the corn-ships may have been intended to facilitate this operation.
[46] Demosth. (or Pseudo-Demosth.) Orat. De Fœdere Alex. p. 219.
“Let those speakers who are perpetually admonishing us to observe the convention (the orator contends), prevail on the imperial chief to set the example of observing it on his part. I too impress upon you the like observance. To a democracy nothing is more essential than scrupulous regard to equity and justice.[47] But the convention itself enjoins all its members to make war against transgressors; and pursuant to this article, you ought to make war against Macedon.[48] Be assured that all Greeks will see that the war is neither directed against them nor brought on by your fault.[49] At this juncture, such a step for the maintenance of your own freedom as well as Hellenic freedom generally, will be not less opportune and advantageous than it is just.[50] The time is come for shaking off your disgraceful submission to others, and your oblivion of our own past dignity.[51] If you encourage me, I am prepared to make a formal motion—To declare war against the violators of the convention, as the convention itself directs.”[52]
[47] Demosth. ib. p. 211. οἶμαι γὰρ οὐδὲν οὕτω τοῖς δημοκρατουμένοις πρέπειν, ὡς περὶ τὸ ἴσον καὶ τὸ δίκαιον σπουδάζειν.
I give here the main sense, without binding myself to the exact phrases.
[48] Demosth. ib. p. 213. καὶ γὰρ ἔτι προσγέγραπται ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις, πολέμιον εἶναι, τὸν ἐκεῖνα ἅπερ Ἀλέξανδρος ποιοῦντα, ἁπᾶσι τοῖς τῆς εἰρήνης κοινωνοῦσι, καὶ τὴν χώραν αὐτοῦ, καὶ στρατεύεσθαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἅπαντας. Compare p. 214 init.
[49] Demosth. ib. p. 217. οὐδεὶς ὑμῖν ἐγκαλέσει ποτε τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὡς ἄρα παρέβητέ τι τῶν κοινῇ ὁμολογηθέντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ χάριν ἕξουσιν ὅτι μόνοι ἐξηλέγξατε τοὺς ταῦτα ποιοῦντας, etc.
[50] Demosth. ib. p. 214. νυνὶ δ᾽, ὅτ᾽ εἰς ταὐτὸ δίκαιον ἅμα καὶ ὁ καιρὸς καὶ τὸ σύμφερον συνδεδράμηκεν, ἄλλον ἄρα τινὰ χρόνον ἀναμενεῖτε τῆς ἰδίας ἐλευθερίας ἅμα καὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων ἀντιλαβέσθαι;
[51] Demosth. ib. p. 220. εἰ ἄρα ποτὲ δεῖ παύσασθαι αἰσχρῶς ἑτέροις ἀκολουθοῦντας, ἀλλὰ μηδ᾽ ἀναμνησθῆναι μηδεμιᾶς φιλοτιμίας τῶν ἐξ ἀρχαιοτάτου καὶ πλείστου καὶ μάλιστα πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἡμῖν ὑπαρχουσῶν.
[52] Demosth. (or Pseudo-Demosth.) Orat. De Fœdere Alex. ἐὰν οὖν κελεύητε, γράψω, καθάπερ αἱ συνθῆκαι κελεύουσι, πολεμεῖν τοῖς παραβεβηκόσιν.
A formal motion for declaring war would have brought upon the mover a prosecution under the Graphê Paranomôn. Accordingly, though intimating clearly that he thought the actual juncture (what it was, we do not know) suitable, he declined to incur such responsibility without seeing beforehand a manifestation of public sentiment sufficient to give him hopes of a favorable verdict from the Dikastery. The motion was probably not made. But a speech so bold, even though not followed up by a motion, is in itself significant of the state of feeling in Greece during the months immediately following the Alexandrine convention. This harangue is only one among many delivered in the Athenian assembly, complaining of Macedonian supremacy as exercised under the convention. It is plain that the acts of Macedonian officers were such as to furnish ample ground for complaint; and the detention of all the trading ships coming out of the Euxine, shows us that even the subsistence of Athens and the islands had become more or less endangered. Though the Athenians resorted to no armed interference, their assembly at least afforded a theatre where public protest could be raised and public sympathy manifested.
It is probable too that at this time Demosthenes and the other anti-Macedonian speakers were encouraged by assurances and subsidies from Persia. Though the death of Philip, and the accession of an untried youth of twenty, had led Darius to believe for the moment that all danger of Asiatic invasion was past, yet his apprehensions were now revived by Alexander’s manifested energy, and by the renewal of the Grecian league under his supremacy.[53] It was apparently during the spring of 335 B. C., that Darius sent money to sustain the anti-Macedonian party at Athens and elsewhere. Æschines affirms, and Deinarchus afterwards repeats (both of them orators hostile to Demosthenes)—That about this time, Darius sent to Athens 300 talents, which the Athenian people refused, but which Demosthenes took, reserving however 70 talents out of the sum for his own private purse: That public inquiry was afterwards instituted on the subject. Yet nothing is alleged as having been made out;[54] at least Demosthenes was neither condemned, nor even brought (as far as appears) to any formal trial. Out of such data we can elicit no specific fact. But they warrant the general conclusion, that Darius, or the satraps in Asia Minor, sent money to Athens in the spring of 335 B. C., and letters or emissaries to excite hostilities against Alexander.
[53] Diodorus, xvii. 7.
[54] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 634; Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s. 11-19, p. 9-14. It is Æschines who states that the 300 talents were sent to the Athenian people, and refused by them.
Three years later, after the battle of Issus, Alexander in his letter to Darius accuses that prince of having sent both letters and money into Greece, for the purpose of exciting war against him. Alexander states that the Lacedæmonians accepted the money, but that all the other Grecian cities refused it (Arrian, ii. 14, 9). There is no reason to doubt these facts; but I find nothing identifying the precise point of time to which Alexander alludes.
That Demosthenes, and probably other leading orators, received such remittances from Persia, is no evidence of that personal corruption which is imputed to them by their enemies. It is no way proved that Demosthenes applied the money to his own private purposes. To receive and expend it in trying to organize combinations for the enfranchisement of Greece, was a proceeding which he would avow as not only legitimate but patriotic. It was aid obtained from one foreign prince to enable Hellas to throw off the worse dominion of another. At this moment, the political interests of Persia coincided with that of all Greeks who aspired to freedom. Darius had no chance of becoming master of Greece; but his own security prescribed to him to protect her from being made an appendage of the Macedonian kingdom, and his means of doing so were at this moment ample, had they been efficaciously put forth. Now the purpose of a Greek patriot would be to preserve the integrity and autonomy of the Hellenic world against all foreign interference. To invoke the aid of Persia against Hellenic enemies,—as Sparta had done both in the Peloponnesian war and at the peace of Antalkidas, and as Thebes and Athens had followed her example in doing afterwards—was an unwarrantable proceeding: but to invoke the same aid against the dominion of another foreigner, at once nearer and more formidable, was open to no blame on the score either of patriotism or policy. Demosthenes had vainly urged his countrymen to act with energy against Philip, at a time when they might by their own efforts have upheld the existing autonomy both for Athens and for Greece generally. He now seconded or invited Darius, at a time when Greece single-handed had become incompetent to the struggle against Alexander, the common enemy both of Grecian liberty and of the Persian empire. Unfortunately for Athens as well as for himself, Darius, with full means of resistance in his hands, played his game against Alexander even with more stupidity and improvidence than Athens had played hers against Philip.
While such were the aggressions of Macedonian officers in the exercise of their new imperial authority, throughout Greece and the islands—and such the growing manifestations of repugnance to it at Athens—Alexander had returned home to push the preparations for his Persian campaign. He did not however think it prudent to transport his main force into Asia, until he had made his power and personal ascendency felt by the Macedonian dependencies, westward, northward, and north-eastward of Pella—Illyrians, Pæonians, and Thracians. Under these general names were comprised a number[55] of distinct tribes, or nations, warlike and for the most part predatory. Having remained unconquered until the victories of Philip, they were not kept in subjection even by him without difficulty: nor were they at all likely to obey his youthful successor, until they had seen some sensible evidence of his personal energy.
[55] Strabo speaks of the Thracian ἔθνη as twenty-two in number, capable of sending out 200,000 foot, and 15,000 horses (Strabo, vii. Fragm. Vatic. 48).
Accordingly, in the spring, Alexander put himself at the head of a large force, and marched in an easterly direction from Amphipolis, through the narrow Sapæan pass between Philippi and the sea.[56] In ten days’ march he reached the difficult mountain path over which alone he could cross Mount Hæmus (Balkan.) Here he found a body of the free Thracians and of armed merchants of the country, assembled to oppose his progress; posted on the high ground with waggons in their front, which it was their purpose to roll down the steep declivity against the advancing ranks of the Macedonians. Alexander eluded this danger by ordering his soldiers either to open their ranks, so as to let the waggons go through freely—or where there was no room for such loose array, to throw themselves on the ground with their shields closely packed together and slanting over their bodies; so that the waggons, dashing down the steep and coming against the shields, were carried off the ground, and made to bound over the bodies of the men to the space below. All the waggons rolled down without killing a single man. The Thracians, badly armed, were then easily dispersed by the Macedonian attack, with the loss of 1500 men killed, and all their women and children made prisoners.[57] The captives and plunder were sent back under an escort to be sold at the seaports.
[56] Strabo, vii. p. 331 (Fragm.); Arrian, i. 1, 6; Appian, Bell. Civil. iv. 87, 105, 106. Appian gives (iv. 103) a good general description of the almost impassable and trackless country to the north and north-east of Philippi.
[57] Arrian, i. 1, 12, 17. The precise locality of that steep road whereby Alexander crossed the Balkan, cannot be determined. Baron von Moltke, in his account of the Russian campaign in Bulgaria (1828-1829), gives an enumeration of four roads, passable by an army, crossing this chain from north to south (see chap. i. of that work). But whether Alexander passed by any one of these four, or by some other road still more to the west, we cannot tell.
Having thus forced the mountain road, Alexander led his army over the chain of Mount Hæmus, and marched against the Triballi: a powerful Thracian tribe,—extending (as far as can be determined) from the plain of Kossovo in modern Servia northward towards the Danube,—whom Philip had conquered, yet not without considerable resistance and even occasional defeat. Their prince Syrmus had already retired with the women and children of the tribe into an island of the Danube called Peukê, where many other Thracians had also sought shelter. The main force of the Triballi took post in woody ground on the banks of the rivet Zyginus, about three days’ march from the Danube. Being tempted however, by an annoyance from the Macedonian light-armed, to emerge from their covered position into the open plain, they were here attacked by Alexander with his cavalry and infantry, in close combat, and completely defeated. Three thousand of them were slain, but the rest mostly eluded pursuit by means of the wood, so that they lost few prisoners. The loss of the Macedonians was only eleven horsemen and forty foot slain; according to the statement of Ptolemy, son of Lagus, then one of Alexander’s confidential officers, and afterwards founder of the dynasty of Greco-Egyptian kings.[58]
[58] Arrian, i. 2.
Three days’ march, from the scene of action, brought Alexander to the Danube, where he found some armed ships which had been previously ordered to sail (probably with stores of provision) from Byzantium round by the Euxine and up the river. He first employed these ships in trying to land a body of troops on the island of Peukê; but his attempt was frustrated by the steep banks, the rapid stream, and the resolute front of the defenders on shore. To compensate for this disappointment, Alexander resolved to make a display of his strength by crossing the Danube and attacking the Getæ; tribes, chiefly horsemen armed with bows,[59] analogous to the Thracians in habits and language. They occupied the left bank of the river, from which their town was about four miles distant. The terror of the Macedonian successes had brought together a body of 4000 Getæ, visible from the opposite shore, to resist any crossing. Accordingly Alexander got together a quantity of the rude boats (hollowed out of a single trunk) employed for transport on the river, and caused the tent-skins of the army to be stuffed with hay in order to support rafts. He then put himself on shipboard during the night, and contrived to carry across the river a body of 4000 infantry, and 1500 cavalry; landing on a part of the bank where there was high standing wheat and no enemy’s post. The Getæ, intimidated not less by this successful passage than by the excellent array of Alexander’s army, hardly stayed to sustain a charge of cavalry, but hastened to abandon their poorly fortified town and retire father away from the river. Entering the town without resistance, he destroyed it, carried away such movables as he found, and then returned to the river without delay. Before he quitted the northern bank, he offered sacrifice to Zeus the Preserver—to Hêraklês—and to the god Ister (Danube) himself, whom he thanked for having shown himself not impassable.[60] On the very same day, he recrossed the river to his camp; after an empty demonstration of force, intended to prove that he could do what neither his father nor any Grecian army had ever yet done, and what every one deemed impossible—crossing the greatest of all known rivers without a bridge and in the face of an enemy.[61]
[59] Strabo, vii. p. 303.
[60] Arrian, i. 4, 2-7.
[61] Neither the point where Alexander crossed the Danube,—nor the situation of the island called Peukê,—nor the identity of the river Lyginus—nor the part of Mount Hæmus which Alexander forced his way over—can be determined. The data given by Arrian are too brief and too meagre to make out with assurance any part of his march after he crossed the Nestus. The facts reported by the historian represent only a small portion of what Alexander really did in this expedition.
It seems clear, however, that the main purpose of Alexander was to attack and humble the Triballi. Their locality is known generally as the region where the modern Servia joins Bulgaria. They reached eastward (in the times of Thucydides, ii. 96) as far as the river Oskius or Isker, which crosses the chain of Hæmus from south to north, passes by the modern city of Sophia, and falls into the Danube. Now Alexander, in order to conduct his army from the eastern bank of the river Nestus, near its mouth, to the country of the Triballi, would naturally pass through Philippopolis, which city appears to have been founded by his father Philip, and therefore probably had a regular road of communication to the maritime regions. (See Stephanus Byz. v. Φιλιππόπολις.) Alexander would cross Mount Hæmus, then, somewhere north-west of Philippopolis. We read in the year 376 B. C. (Diodor. xv. 36) of an invasion of Abdêra by the Triballi; which shows that there was a road, not unfit for an army, from their territory to the eastern side of the mouth of the river Nestus, where Abdêra was situated. This was the road which Alexander is likely to have followed. But he must probably have made a considerable circuit to the eastward; for the route which Paul Lucas describes himself as having taken direct from Philippopolis to Drama, can hardly have been fit for an army.
The river Lyginus may perhaps be the modern Isker, but this is not certain. The Island called Peukê is still more perplexing. Strabo speaks of it as if it were near the mouth of the Danube (vii. p. 301-305). But it seems impossible that either the range of the Triballi, or the march of Alexander, can have extended so far eastward. Since Strabo (as well as Arrian) copied Alexander’s march from Ptolemy, whose authority is very good, we are compelled to suppose that there was a second island called Peukê higher up the river.
The Geography of Thrace is so little known, that we cannot wonder at our inability to identify these places. We are acquainted, and that but imperfectly, with the two high roads, both starting from Byzantium or Constantinople. 1. The one (called the King’s Road, from having been in part the march of Xerxes in his invasion of Greece, Livy, xxxix. 27; Herodot. vii. 115) crossing the Hebrus and the Nestus, touching the northern coast of the Ægean Sea at Neapolis, a little south of Philippi, then crossing the Strymon at Amphipolis, and stretching through Pella across Inner Macedonia and Illyria to Dyrrachium (the Via Egnatia). 2. The other, taking a more northerly course, passing along the upper valley of the Hebrus from Adrianople to Philippopolis, then through Sardicia (Sophia) and Naissus (Nisch), to the Danube near Belgrade; being the high road now followed from Constantinople to Belgrade.
But apart from these two roads, scarcely anything whatever is known of the country. Especially the mountainous region of Rhodopê, bounded on the west by the Strymon, on the north and east by the Hebrus, and on the south by the Ægean, is a Terra Incognita, except the few Grecian colonies on the coast. Very few travellers have passed along, or described the southern or King’s Road, while the region in the interior, apart from the high road, was absolutely unexplored until the visit of M. Viquesnel in 1847, under scientific mission from the French government. The brief, but interesting account, composed by M. Viquesnel, of this rugged and impracticable district, is contained in the “Archives des Missions Scientifiques et Litteraires”, for 1850, published at Paris. Unfortunately, the map intended to accompany that account has not yet been prepared; but the published data, as far as they go, have been employed by Kiepert in constructing his recent map of Turkey in Europe; the best map of these regions now existing, though still very imperfect. The Illustrations (Erläuterungen) annexed by Kiepert to his map of Turkey, show the defective data on which the chartography of this country is founded. Until the survey of M. Viquesnel, the higher part of the course of the Strymon, and nearly all the course of the Nestus, may be said to have been wholly unknown.
The terror spread by Alexander’s military operations was so great, that not only the Triballi, but the other autonomous Thracians around, sent envoys tendering presents or tribute, and soliciting peace. Alexander granted their request. His mind being bent upon war with Asia, he was satisfied with having intimidated these tribes so as to deter them from rising during his absence. What conditions he imposed, we do not know, but he accepted the presents.[62]
[62] Arrian, i. 4, 5; Strabo, vii. p. 301.
While these applications from the Thracians were under debate, envoys arrived from a tribe of Gauls occupying a distant mountainous region westward towards the Ionic Gulf. Though strangers to Alexander, they had heard so much of the recent exploits, that they came with demands to be admitted to his friendship. They were distinguished both for tall stature and for boastful language. Alexander readily exchanged with them assurances of alliance. Entertaining them at a feast, he asked, in the course of conversation, what it was that they were most afraid of, among human contingencies? They replied, that they feared no man, nor any danger, except only, lest the heaven should fall upon them. Their answer disappointed Alexander, who had expected that they would name him, as the person of whom they were most afraid; so prodigious was his conceit of his own exploits. He observed to his friends that these Gauls were swaggerers. Yet if we attend to the sentiment rather than the language, we shall see that such an epithet applies with equal or greater propriety to Alexander himself. The anecdote is chiefly interesting as it proves at how early an age the exorbitant self-esteem, which we shall hereafter find him manifesting, began. That after the battle of Issus he should fancy himself superhuman, we can hardly be astonished; but he was as yet only in the first year of his reign, and had accomplished nothing beyond his march into Thrace and his victory over the Triballi.
After arranging these matters, he marched in a south-westerly direction into the territory of the Agriânes and the other Pæonians, between the rivers Strymon and Axius in the highest portion of their course. Here he was met by a body of Agriânes under their prince Langarus, who had already contracted a personal friendship for him at Pella before Philip’s death. News came that the Illyrian Kleitus, son of Bardylis, who had been subdued by Philip, had revolted at Pelion (a strong post south of lake Lychnidus, on the west side of the chain of Skardus and Pindus, near the place where that chain is broken by the cleft called the Klissura of Tzangon or Devol[63])—and that the western Illyrians, called Taulantii, under their prince Glaukias, were on the march to assist him. Accordingly Alexander proceeded thither forthwith, leaving Langarus to deal with the Illyrian tribe Autariatæ, who had threatened to oppose his progress. He marched along the bank and up the course of the Erigon, from a point near where it joins the Axius.[64] On approaching Pelion, he found the Illyrians posted in front of the town and on the heights around, awaiting the arrival of Glaukias their promised ally. While Alexander was making his dispositions for attack, they offered their sacrifices to the gods: the victims being three boys, three girls, and three black rams. At first they stepped boldly forward to meet him, but before coming to close quarters, they turned and fled into the town with such haste that the slain victims were left lying on the spot.[65] Having thus driven in the defenders, Alexander was preparing to draw a wall of circumvallation round the Pelion, when he was interrupted by the arrival of Glaukias with so large a force as to compel him to abandon the project. A body of cavalry, sent out from the Macedonian camp under Philotas to forage, were in danger of being cut off by Glaukias, and were only rescued by the arrival of Alexander himself with a reinforcement. In the face of this superior force, it was necessary to bring off the Macedonian army, through a narrow line of road along the river Eordaikus, where in some places there was only room for four abreast, with hill or marsh everywhere around. By a series of bold and skilful manœuvres, and by effective employment of his battering-train or projectile machines to protect the rear-guard, Alexander completely baffled the enemy, and brought off his army without loss.[66] Moreover these Illyrians, who had not known how to make use of such advantages of position, abandoned themselves to disorder as soon as their enemy had retreated, neglecting all precautions for the safety of their camp. Apprised of this carelessness, Alexander made a forced night-march back, at the head of his Agrianian division and light troops supported by the remaining army. He surprised the Illyrians in their camp before daylight. The success of this attack against a sleeping and unguarded army was so complete, that the Illyrians fled at once without resistance. Many were slain or taken prisoners; the rest, throwing away their arms, hurried away homeward, pursued by Alexander for a considerable distance. The Illyrian prince Kleitus was forced to evacuate Pelion, which place he burned, and then retired into the territory of Glaukias.[67]
[63] For the situation of Pelion, compare Livy, xxxi. 33, 34, and the remarks of Colonel Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. iii. ch. 28. p. 310-324.
[64] Assuming Alexander to have been in the Territory of the Triballi, the modern Servia, he would in this march follow mainly the road which is now frequented between Belgrade and Bitolia; through the plain of Kossovo, Pristina, Katschanik (rounding on the north-eastern side the Ljubatrin, the north-eastern promontory terminating the chain of Skardus), Uschkub, Kuprili, along the higher course of the Axius or Vardar, until the point where the Erigon or Tscherna joins that river below Kuprili. Here he would be among the Pæonians and Agrianes, on the east—and the Dardani and Autariatæ, seemingly on the north and west. If he then followed the course of the Erigon, he would pass through the portions of Macedonia then called Deuripia and Pelagonia: he would go between the ridges of the mountains, through which the Erigon breaks, called Nidje on the south, and Babuna on the north. He would pass afterwards to Florina, and not to Bitolia.
See Kiepert’s map of these regions—a portion of his recent map of Turkey in Europe—and Griesbach’s description of the general track.
[65] Arrian, i. 5, 12.
[66] Arrian, i. 6, 3-18.
[67] Arrian, i. 6, 19-22.
Just as Alexander had completed this victory over Kleitus and the Taulantian auxiliaries, and before he had returned home, news reached him of a menacing character. The Thebans had declared themselves independent of him, and were besieging his garrison in the Kadmeia.
Of this event, alike important and disastrous to those who stood forward, the immediate antecedents are very imperfectly known to us. It has already been remarked that the vote of submission on the part of the Greeks to Alexander as Imperator, during the preceding autumn, had been passed only under the intimidation of a present Macedonian force. Though the Spartans alone had courage to proclaim their dissent, the Athenians, Arcadians, Ætolians, and others, were well known even to Alexander himself, as ready to do the like on any serious reverse to the Macedonian arms.[68] Moreover the energy and ability displayed by Alexander had taught the Persian king that all danger to himself was not removed by the death of Philip, and induced him either to send, or to promise, pecuniary aid to the anti-Macedonian Greeks. We have already noticed the manifestation of anti-Macedonian sentiment at Athens—proclaimed by several of the most eminent orators—Demosthenes, Lykurgus, Hyperides, and others; as well as by active military men like Charidemus and Ephialtes,[69] who probably spoke out more boldly when Alexander was absent on the Danube. In other cities, the same sentiment doubtless found advocates, though less distinguished; but at Thebes, where it could not be openly proclaimed, it prevailed with the greatest force.[70] The Thebans suffered an oppression from which most of the other cities were free—the presence of a Macedonian garrison in their citadel; just as they had endured, fifty years before, the curb of a Spartan garrison after the fraud of Phœbidas and Leontiades. In this case, as in the former, the effect was to arm the macedonizing leaders with absolute power over their fellow-citizens, and to inflict upon the latter not merely the public mischief of extinguishing all free speech, but also multiplied individual insults and injuries, prompted by the lust and rapacity of rulers, foreign as well as domestic.[71] A number of Theban citizens, among them the freest and boldest spirits, were in exile at Athens, receiving from the public indeed nothing beyond a safe home, but secretly encouraged to hope for better things by Demosthenes and the other anti-Macedonian leaders.[72] In like manner, fifty years before, it was at Athens, and from private Athenian citizens, that the Thebans Pelopidas and Mellon had found that sympathy which enabled them to organize their daring conspiracy for rescuing Thebes from the Spartans. That enterprise, admired throughout Greece as alike adventurous, skilful, and heroic, was the model present to the imagination of the Theban exiles, to be copied if any tolerable opportunity occurred.
[68] Arrian, i. 7, 5.
[69] Ælian, V. H. xii. 57.
[70] Demades, ὑπὲρ τῆς δωδεκαετίας, s. 14. Θηβαῖοι δὲ μέγιστον εἶχον δεσμὸν τὴν τῶν Μακεδόνων φρουρὰν, ὑφ᾽ ἧς οὐ μόνον τὰς χεῖρας συνεδέθησαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν παῤῥησίαν ἀφῄρηντο....
[71] The Thebans, in setting forth their complaints to the Arcadians, stated—ὅτι οὐ τὴν πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας φιλίαν Θηβαῖοι διαλῦσαι βουλόμενοι, τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐπανέστησαν, οὐδ᾽ ἐναντίον τῶν Ἑλλήνων οὐδὲν πράξοντες, ~ἀλλὰ τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐν τῇ πόλει γινόμενα φέρειν οὐκέτι δυνάμενοι, οὐδὲ τὴν δούλειαν ὑπομένειν, οὐδὲ τὰς ὕβρεις ὁρᾷν τὰς εἰς τὰ ἐλεύθερα σώματα γινομένας~.
See Demades περὶ τῆς δωδεκαετίας, s. 13, the speech of Cleadas, Justin, xi. 4; and (Deinarchus cont. Demosth. s. 20) compare Livy, xxxix. 27—about the working of the Macedonian garrison at Maroncia, in the time of Philip son of Demetrius.
[72] Demades περὶ τῆς δωδεκαετίας, Fragm. ad fin.
Such was the feeling in Greece, during the long absence of Alexander on his march into Thrace and Illyria; a period of four or five months, ending at August 335 B. C. Not only was Alexander thus long absent, but he sent home no reports of his proceedings. Couriers were likely enough to be intercepted among the mountains and robbers of Thrace; and even if they reached Pella, their despatches were not publicly read, as such communications would have been read to the Athenian assembly. Accordingly we are not surprised to hear that rumors arose of his having been defeated and slain. Among these reports, both multiplied and confident, one was even certified by a liar who pretended to have just arrived from Thrace, to have been an eye-witness of the fact, and to have been himself wounded in the action against the Triballi, where Alexander had perished.[73] This welcome news, not fabricated, but too hastily credited, by Demosthenes and Lykurgus,[74] was announced to the Athenian assembly. In spite of doubts expressed by Demades and Phokion, it was believed not only by the Athenians and the Theban exiles there present, but also by the Arcadians, Eleians, Ætolians and other Greeks. For a considerable time, through the absence of Alexander, it remained uncontradicted, which increased the confidence in its truth.
[73] Arrian, i. 7, 3. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ πολὺς ὁ λόγος (of the death of Alexander) καὶ παρὰ πολλῶν ἐφοίτα, ὅτι τε χρόνον ἀπῆν οὐκ ὀλίγον καὶ ὅτι οὐδεμία ἀγγελία παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀφῖκτο, etc.
[74] Demades περὶ τῆς δωδεκαετίας, ad fin. ἡνίκα Δημοσθένης καὶ Λυκοῦργος τῷ μὲν λόγῳ παραταττόμενοι τοὺς Μακεδόνας ἐνίκων ἐν Τριβάλλοις, μόνον δ᾽ οὐχ ὁρατὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος νεκρὸν τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον προέθηκαν ... ἐμὲ δὲ στυγνὸν καὶ περίλυπον ἔφασκον εἶναι μὴ συνευδοκοῦντα, etc.
Justin, xi. 2. “Demosthenem oratorem, qui Macedonum deletas omnes cum rege copias à Triballis affirmaverit, producto in concionem auctore, qui in eo praelio, in quo rex ceciderit, se quoque vulneratum diceret.”
Compare Tacitus, Histor. i. 34. “Vix dum egresso Pisone, occisum in castris Othonem, vagus primum et incertus rumor, mox, ut in magnis mendaciis, interfuisse se quidam, et vidisse affirmabant, credulà famâ inter gaudentes et incuriosos.... Obvius in palatio Julius Atticus, speculator, cruentum gladium ostentans, occisum à se Othonem exclamavit.”
It is stated that Alexander was really wounded in the head by a stone, in the action with the Illyrians (Plutarch, Fortun. Alex. p. 327).
It was upon the full belief in this rumor, of Alexander’s defeat and death, that the Grecian cities proceeded. The event severed by itself their connection with Macedonia. There was neither son nor adult brother to succeed to the throne: so that not merely the foreign ascendency, but even the intestine unity, of Macedonia, was likely to be broken up. In regard to Athens, Arcadia, Elis, Ætolia, etc., the anti-Macedonian sentiment was doubtless vehemently manifested, but no special action was called for. It was otherwise in regard to Thebes. Phœnix, Prochytes, and other Theban exiles at Athens, immediately laid their plan for liberating their city and expelling the Macedonian garrison from the Kadmeia. Assisted with arms and money by Demosthenes and other Athenian citizens, and invited by their partisans at Thebes, they suddenly entered that city in arms. Though unable to carry the Kadmeia by surprise, they seized in the city, and put to death, Amyntas, a principal Macedonian officer, with Timolaus, one of the leading macedonizing Thebans.[75] They then immediately convoked a general assembly of the Thebans, to whom they earnestly appealed for a vigorous effort to expel the Macedonians, and reconquer the ancient freedom of the city. Expatiating upon the misdeeds of the garrison and upon the oppressions of those Thebans who governed by means of the garrison, they proclaimed that the happy moment of liberation had now arrived, through the recent death of Alexander. They doubtless recalled the memory of Pelopidas, and the glorious enterprise, cherished by all Theban patriots, whereby he had rescued the city from Spartan occupation, forty-six years before. To this appeal the Thebans cordially responded. The assembly passed a vote, declaring severance from Macedonia, and autonomy of Thebes—and naming as Bœotarchs some of the returned exiles, with others of the same party, for the purpose of energetic measures against the garrison in the Kadmeia.[76]
[75] Arrian, i. 7, 1: compare Deinarchus cont. Demosthenes, s. 75. p. 53.
[76] Arrian, i. 7, 3-17.
Unfortunately for Thebes, none of these new Bœotarchs were men of the stamp of Epaminondas, probably not even of Pelopidas. Yet their scheme, though from its melancholy result it is generally denounced as insane, really promised better at first than that of the anti-Spartan conspirators in 380 B. C. The Kadmeia was instantly summoned; hopes being perhaps indulged, that the Macedonian commander would surrender it with as little resistance as the Spartan harmost had done. But such hopes were not realized. Philip had probably caused the citadel to be both strengthened and provisioned. The garrison defied the Theban leaders, who did not feel themselves strong enough to give orders for an assault, as Pelopidas in his time was prepared to do, if surrender had been denied.[77] They contented themselves with drawing and guarding a double line of circumvallation round the Kadmeia, so as to prevent both sallies from within and supplies from without.[78] They then sent envoys in the melancholy equipment of suppliants, to the Arcadians and others, representing that their recent movement was directed, not against Hellenic union, but against Macedonian oppression and outrage, which pressed upon them with intolerable bitterness. As Greeks and freemen, they entreated aid to rescue them from such a calamity. They obtained much favorable sympathy, with some promise and even half-performance. Many of the leading orators at Athens—Demosthenes, Lykurgus, Hyperides, and others—together with the military men Charidemus and Ephialtes—strongly urged their countrymen to declare in favor of Thebes and send aid against the Kadmeia. But the citizens generally, following Demades and Phokion, waited to be better assured both of Alexander’s death and of its consequences, before they would incur the hazard of open hostility against Macedonia, though they seem to have declared sympathy with the Theban revolution.[79] Demosthenes farther went as envoy into Peloponnesus, while the Macedonian Antipater also sent round urgent applications to the Peloponnesian cities, requiring their contingents, as members of the confederacy under Alexander, to act against Thebes. The eloquence of Demosthenes, backed by his money, or by Persian money administered through him, prevailed on the Peloponnesians to refuse compliance with Antipater and to send no contingents against Thebes.[80] The Eleians and Ætolians held out general assurances favorable to the revolution at Thebes, while the Arcadians even went so far as to send out some troops to second it, though they did not advance beyond the isthmus.[81]
[77] Xenoph. Hellen. v. 4, 11. See Volume X. Ch. lxxvii. p. 81 of this History.
[78] Arrian, i. 7, 14.
[79] Diodor. xvii. 8.
[80] Deinarchus cont. Demosth. p. 14. s. 19. καὶ Ἀρκάδων ἡκόντων εἰς εσθμὸν, καὶ τὴν μὲν παρὰ Ἀντιπάτρου πρεσβείαν ἄπρακτον ἀποστειλάντων, etc.
In the vote passed by the people of Athens some years afterwards, awarding a statue and other honors to Demosthenes, these proceedings in Peloponnesus are enumerated among his titles to public gratitude—καὶ ὡς ἐκώλυσε Πελοποννησίους ἐπὶ Θήβας Ἀλεξάνδρῳ βοηθῆσαι, χρήματα δοὺς καὶ αὐτὸς πρεσβεύσας, etc. (Plutarch, Vit. X. Orator. p. 850).
[81] Arrian, i. 10, 2; Æschines adv. Ktesiphont. p. 634.
Here was a crisis in Grecian affairs, opening new possibilities for the recovery of freedom. Had the Arcadians and other Greeks lent decisive aid to Thebes—had Athens acted even with as much energy as she did twelve years afterwards during the Lamian war, occupying Thermopylæ with an army and a fleet—the gates of Greece might well have been barred against a new Macedonian force, even with Alexander alive and at its head. That the struggle of Thebes was not regarded at the time, even by macedonizing Greeks, as hopeless, is shown by the subsequent observations both of Æschines and Deinarchus at Athens. Æschines (delivering five years afterwards his oration against Ktesiphon) accuses Demosthenes of having by his perverse backwardness brought about the ruin of Thebes. The foreign mercenaries forming part of the garrison of the Kadmeia were ready (Æschines affirms) to deliver up that fortress, on receiving five talents: the Arcadian generals would have brought up their troops to the aid of Thebes, if nine or ten talents had been paid to them—having repudiated the solicitations of Antipater. Demosthenes (say these two orators) having in his possession 300 talents from the Persian king, to instigate anti-Macedonian movements in Greece, was supplicated by the Theban envoys to furnish money for these purposes, but refused the request, kept the money for himself, and thus prevented both the surrender of the Kadmeia and the onward march of the Arcadians.[82] The charge here advanced against Demosthenes appears utterly incredible. To suppose that anti-Macedonian movements counted for so little in his eyes, is an hypothesis belied by his whole history. But the fact that such allegations were made by Æschines only five years afterwards, proves the reports and the feelings of the time—that the chances of successful resistance to Macedonia on the part of the Thebans were not deemed unfavorable. And when the Athenians, following the counsels of Demades and Phokion, refused to aid Thebes or occupy Thermopylæ—they perhaps consulted the safety of Athens separately, but they receded from the generous and Pan-hellenic patriotism which had animated their ancestors against Xerxes and Mardonius.[83]
[82] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 634; Deinarch. adv. Demosth. p. 15, 16. s. 19-22.
[83] See Herod. viii. 143. Demosthenes in his orations frequently insists on the different rank and position of Athens, as compared with those of the smaller Grecian states—and of the higher and more arduous obligations consequent thereupon. This is one grand point of distinction between his policy and that of Phokion. See a striking passage in the speech De Coronâ, p. 245. s. 77; and Orat. De Republ. Ordinand. p. 176. s. 37.
Isokrates holds the same language touching the obligations of Sparta,—in the speech which he puts into the mouth of Archidamus. “No one will quarrel with Epidaurians and Phliasians, for looking only how they can get through and keep themselves in being. But for Lacedæmonians, it is impossible to aim simply at preservation and nothing beyond—by any means, whatever they may be. If we cannot preserve ourselves with honor, we ought to prefer a glorious death.” (Isokrates, Orat. vi. Archid. s. 106.)
The backward and narrow policy, which Isokrates here proclaims as fit for Epidaurus and Phlius, but not for Sparta—is precisely what Phokion always recommended for Athens, even while Philip’s power was yet nascent and unsettled.
The Thebans, though left in this ungenerous isolation, pressed the blockade of the Kadmeia, and would presently have reduced the Macedonian garrison, had they not been surprised by the awe-striking event—Alexander arriving in person at Onchêstus in Bœotia, at the head of his victorious army. The first news of his being alive was furnished by his arrival at Onchêstus. No one could at first believe the fact. The Theban leaders contended that it was another Alexander, the son of Aëropus, at the head of a Macedonian army of relief.[84]
[84] Arrian, i. 7, 9.
In this incident we may note two features, which characterized Alexander to the end of his life; matchless celerity of movement, and no less remarkable favor of fortune. Had news of the Theban rising first reached him while on the Danube or among the distant Triballi,—or even when embarrassed in the difficult region round Pelion,—he could hardly by any effort have arrived in time to save the Kadmeia. But he learnt it just when he had vanquished Kleitus and Glaukias, so that his hands were perfectly free—and also when he was in a position peculiarly near and convenient for a straight march into Greece without going back to Pella. From the pass of Tschangon (or of the river Devol), near which Alexander’s last victories were gained, his road lay southward, following downwards in part the higher course of the river Haliakmon, through Upper Macedonia or the regions called Eordæa and Elymeia which lay on his left, while the heights of Pindus and the upper course of the river Aous, occupied by the Epirots called Tymphæi and Parauæi, were on the right. On the seventh day of march, crossing the lower ridges of the Cambunian mountains (which separate Olympus from Pindus and Upper Macedonia from Thessaly), Alexander reached the Thessalian town of Pelinna. Six days more brought him to the Bœotian Onchestus.[85] He was already within Thermopylæ, before any Greeks were aware that he was in march, or even that he was alive. The question about occupying Thermopylæ by a Grecian force was thus set aside. The difficulty of forcing that pass, and the necessity of forestalling Athens in it by stratagem or celerity, was present to the mind of Alexander, as it had been to that of Philip in his expedition of 346 B. C., against the Phokians.
[85] Arrian, i. 7. 6. See, respecting this region, Colonel Leake’s Travels in Northern Greece, ch. vi. p. 300-304; ch. xxviii. p. 303-305, etc.; and for Alexander’s line of march, the map at the end of the volume.
His arrival, in itself a most formidable event, told with double force on the Greeks from its extreme suddenness. We can hardly doubt that both Athenians and Thebans had communications at Pella—that they looked upon any Macedonian invasion as likely to come from thence—and that they expected Alexander himself (assuming him to be still living, contrary to their belief) back in his capital before he began any new enterprise. Upon this hypothesis—in itself probable, and such as would have been realized if Alexander had not already advanced so far southward at the moment when he received the news[86]—they would at least have known beforehand of his approach, and would have had the option of a defensive combination open. As it happened, his unexpected appearance in the heart of Greece precluded all combinations, and checked all idea of resistance.
[86] Diodorus (xvii. 9) incorrectly says that Alexander came back unexpectedly from Thrace. Had this been the fact, he would have come by Pella.
Two days after his arrival in Bœotia, he marched his army round Thebes, so as to encamp on the south side of the city; whereby he both intercepted the communication of the Thebans with Athens, and exhibited his force more visibly to the garrison in the Kadmeia. The Thebans, though alone and without hope of succor, maintained their courage unshaken. Alexander deferred the attack for a day or two, in hopes that they would submit; he wished to avoid an assault which might cost the lives of many of his soldiers, whom he required for his Asiatic schemes. He even made public proclamation,[87] demanding the surrender of the anti-Macedonian leaders Phœnix and Prochytes, but offering to any other Theban who chose to quit the city, permission to come and join him on the terms of the convention sworn in the preceding autumn. A general assembly being convened, the macedonizing Thebans enforced the prudence of submission to an irresistible force. But the leaders recently returned from exile, who had headed the rising, warmly opposed this proposition, contending for resistance to the death. In them, such resolution may not be wonderful, since (as Arrian[88] remarks) they had gone too far to hope for lenity. As it appears however that the mass of citizens deliberately adopted the same resolution, in spite of strong persuasion to the contrary,[89] we see plainly that they had already felt the bitterness of Macedonian dominion, and that sooner than endure a renewal of it, sure to be yet worse, coupled with the dishonor of surrendering their leaders—they had made up their minds to perish with the freedom of their city. At a time when the sentiment of Hellas as an autonomous system was passing away, and when Grecian courage was degenerating into a mere instrument for the aggrandizement of Macedonian chiefs, these countrymen of Epaminondas and Pelopidas set an example of devoted self-sacrifice in the cause of Grecian liberty, not less honorable than that of Leonidas at Thermopylæ, and only less esteemed because it proved infructuous.
[87] Diodor. xvii. 9; Plutarch. Alexand. 11.
[88] Arrian, i. 7, 16.
[89] Diodor. xvii. 9.
In reply to the proclamation of Alexander, the Thebans made from their walls a counter-proclamation, demanding the surrender of his officers Antipater and Philotas, and inviting every one to join them, who desired, in concert with the Persian king and the Thebans, to liberate the Greeks and put down the despot of Hellas.[90] Such a haughty defiance and retort incensed Alexander to the quick. He brought up his battering engines and prepared everything for storming the town. Of the murderous assault which followed, we find different accounts, not agreeing with each other, yet not wholly irreconcilable. It appears that the Thebans had erected, probably in connection with their operations against the Kadmeia, an outwork defended by a double palisade. Their walls were guarded by the least effective soldiers, metics and liberated slaves; while their best troops were bold enough to go forth in front of the gates and give battle. Alexander divided his army into three divisions; one under Perdikkas and Amyntas, against the outwork—a second, destined to combat the Thebans who sallied out—and a third, held in reserve. Between the second of these three divisions, and the Thebans in front of the gates, the battle was so obstinately contested, that success at one time seemed doubtful, and Alexander was forced to order up his reserve. The first Macedonian success was gained by Perdikkas,[91] who, aided by the division of Amyntas and also by the Agrianian regiment and the bowmen carried the first of the two outworks, as well as a postern gate which had been left unguarded. His troops also stormed the second outwork, though he himself was severely wounded and borne away to the camp. Here the Theban defenders fled back into the city, along the hollow way which led to the temple of Herakles, pursued by the light troops, in advance of the rest. Upon these men, however, the Thebans presently turned, repelling them with the loss of Eurybotas their commanding officer and seventy men slain. In pursuing these bowmen, the ranks of the Thebans became somewhat disordered, so that they were unable to resist the steady charge of the Macedonian guards and heavy infantry coming up in support. They were broken, and pushed back into the city; their rout being rendered still more complete by a sally of the Macedonian garrison out of the Kadmeia. The assailants being victorious on this side, the Thebans who were maintaining the combat without the gates were compelled to retreat, and the advancing Macedonians forced their way into the town along with them. Within the town, however, the fighting still continued; the Thebans resisting in organized bodies as long as they could; and when broken, still resisting even single-handed. None of the military population sued for mercy; most of them were slain in the streets; but a few cavalry and infantry cut their way out into the plain and escaped. The fight now degenerated into a carnage. The Macedonians with their Pæonian contingents were incensed with the obstinate resistance; while various Greeks serving as auxiliaries—Phokians, Orchomenians, Thespians, Platæans,—had to avenge ancient and grievous injuries endured from Thebes. Such furious feelings were satiated by an indiscriminate massacre of all who came in their way, without distinction of age or sex—old men, women, and children, in houses and even in temples. This wholesale slaughter was accompanied of course by all the plunder and manifold outrage with which victorious assailants usually reward themselves.[92]
[90] Diodor. xvii. 9.
[91] The attack of Perdikkas was represented by Ptolemy, from whom Arrian copies (i. 8, 1), not only as being the first and only attack made by the Macedonian army on Thebes, but also as made by Perdikkas without orders from Alexander, who was forced to support it in order to preserve Perdikkas from being overwhelmed by the Thebans. According to Ptolemy and Arrian, therefore, the storming of Thebes took place both without the orders, and against the wishes, of Alexander; the capture moreover was effected rapidly with little trouble to the besieging army (ἡ ἅλωσις δι᾽ ὀλίγου τε καὶ ~οὐ ξὺν πόνῳ τῶν ἑλόντων~ ξυνενεχθεῖσα, Arr. i. 9, 9): the bloodshed and pillage was committed by the vindictive sentiment of the Bœotian allies.
Diodorus had before him a very different account. He affirms that Alexander both combined and ordered the assault—that the Thebans behaved like bold and desperate men, resisting obstinately and for a long time—that the slaughter afterwards was committed by the general body of the assailants; the Bœotian allies being doubtless conspicuous among them. Diodorus gives this account at some length, and with his customary rhetorical amplifications. Plutarch and Justin are more brief; but coincide in the same general view, and not in that of Arrian. Polyænus again (iv. 3 12) gives something different from all.
To me it appears that the narrative of Diodorus is (in its basis, and striking off rhetorical amplifications) more credible than that of Arrian. Admitting the attack made by Perdikkas, I conceive it to have been a portion of the general plan of Alexander. I cannot think it probable that Perdikkas attacked without orders, or that Thebes was captured with little resistance. It was captured by one assault (Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 524), but by an assault well-combined and stoutly contested—not by one begun without preparation or order, and successful after hardly any resistance. Alexander, after having offered what he thought liberal terms, was not the man to shrink from carrying his point by force; nor would the Thebans have refused those terms, unless their minds had been made up for strenuous and desperate defence, without hope of ultimate success.
What authority Diodorus followed, we do not know. He may have followed Kleitarchus, a contemporary and an Æolian, who must have had good means of information respecting such an event as the capture of Thebes (see Geier, Alexandri M. Historiarum Scriptores ætate suppares, Leips. 1844, p. 6-152; and Vossius, De Historicis Græcis. i. x. p. 90, ed. Westermann). I have due respect for the authority of Ptolemy, but I cannot go along with Geier and other critics who set aside all other witnesses, even contemporary, respecting Alexander, as worthy of little credit, unless where such witnesses are confirmed by Ptolemy or Aristobulus. We must remember that Ptolemy did not compose his book until after he became king of Egypt, in 306 B. C.; nor indeed until after the battle of Ipsus in 301, according to Geier (p. 1); at least twenty-nine years after the sack of Thebes. Moreover, Ptolemy was not ashamed of what Geier calls (p. 11) the “pious fraud” of announcing, that two speaking serpents conducted the army of Alexander to the holy precinct of Zeus Ammon (Arrian, iii. 3). Lastly, it will be found that the depositions which are found in other historians, but not in Ptolemy and Aristobulus, relate principally to matters discreditable to Alexander. That Ptolemy and Aristobulus omitted, is in my judgment far more probable, than that other historians invented. Admiring biographers would easily excuse themselves for refusing to proclaim to the world such acts as the massacre of the Branchidæ, or the dragging of the wounded Batiz at Gaza.
[92] Arrian, i. 8; Diodor. xvii. 12, 13.
More than five hundred Macedonians are asserted to have been slain, and six thousand Thebans. Thirty thousand captives were collected.[93] The final destiny of these captives, and of Thebes itself, was submitted by Alexander to the Orchomenians, Platæans, Phokians, and other Grecian auxiliaries in the assault. He must have known well beforehand what the sentence of such judges would be. They pronounced, that the city of Thebes should be razed to the ground: that the Kadmeia alone should be maintained, as a military post with Macedonian garrison: that the Theban territory should be distributed among the allies themselves: that Orchomenus and Platæa should be rebuilt and fortified: that all the captive Thebans, men, women, and children, should be sold as slaves—excepting only priests and priestesses, and such as were connected by recognized ties of hospitality with Philip or Alexander, or such as had been proxeni of the Macedonians; that the Thebans who had escaped should be proclaimed outlaws, liable to arrest and death, wherever they were found; and that every Grecian city should be interdicted from harboring them.[94]
[93] Diodorus (xvii. 14) and Plutarch (Alexand. 11) agree in giving the totals of 6000 and 30,000.
[94] Arrian, i. 9; Diodor. xvii. 14.
This overwhelming sentence, in spite of an appeal for lenity by a Theban[95] named Kleadas, was passed by the Grecian auxiliaries of Alexander, and executed by Alexander himself, who made but one addition to the excepting clauses. He left the house of Pindar standing, and spared the descendants of the poet. With these reserves, Thebes was effaced from the earth. The Theban territory was partitioned among the reconstituted cities of Orchomenus and Platæa. Nothing, except the Macedonian military post at the Kadmeia, remained to mark the place where the chief of the Bœotian confederacy had once stood. The captives were all sold, and are said to have yielded 440 talents; large prices being offered by bidders from feelings of hostility towards the city.[96] Diodorus tells us that this sentence was passed by the general synod of Greeks. But we are not called upon to believe that this synod, subservient though it was sure to be when called upon to deliberate under the armed force of Alexander, could be brought to sanction such a ruin upon one of the first and most ancient Hellenic cities. For we learn from Arrian that the question was discussed and settled only by the Grecian auxiliaries who had taken part with Alexander;[97] and that the sentence therefore represents the bitter antipathies of the Orchomenians, Platæans, etc. Without doubt, these cities had sustained harsh and cruel treatment from Thebes. In so far as they were concerned, the retribution upon the Thebans was merited. Those persons, however, who (as Arrian tells us) pronounced the catastrophe to be a divine judgment upon Thebes for having joined Xerxes against Greece[98] a century and a half before,—must have forgotten that not only the Orchomenians, but even Alexander of Macedon, the namesake and predecessor of the destroying conqueror, had served in the army of Xerxes along with the Thebans.
[95] Justin, xi. 4.
[96] Diodor. xvii. 14; Justin, xi. 4: “pretium non ex ementium commodo, sed ex inimicorum odio extenditur.”
[97] Arrian, i. 9, 13. Τοῖς δὲ μετασχοῦσι τοῦ ἔργου ξυμμάχοις, οἷς δὴ καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν Ἀλέξανδρος τὰ κατὰ τὰς Θήβας διαθεῖναι, ἔδοξε, etc.
[98] Arrian, i. 9, 10. He informs us (i. 9, 12) that there were many previous portents which foreshadowed this ruin: Diodorus (xvii. 10) on the contrary, enumerates many previous signs, all tending to encourage the Thebans.
Arrian vainly endeavors to transfer from Alexander to the minor Bœotian towns the odium of this cruel destruction—unparalleled in Grecian history (as he himself says), when we look to the magnitude of the city; yet surpassed in the aggregate by the subversion, under the arms of Philip, of no less than thirty-two free Chalkidic cities, thirteen years before. The known antipathy of these Bœotians was invoked by Alexander to color an infliction which satisfied at once his sentiment, by destroying an enemy who defied him—and his policy, by serving as a terrific example to keep down other Greeks.[99] But though such were the views which governed him at the moment, he came afterwards to look back upon the proceeding with shame and sorrow. The shock to Hellenic feeling, when a city was subverted, arose not merely from the violent extinction of life, property, liberty, and social or political institutions—but also from the obliteration of legends and the suppression of religious observances, thus wronging and provoking the local gods and heroes. We shall presently find Alexander himself sacrificing at Ilium,[100] in order to appease the wrath of Priam, still subsisting and efficacious, against himself and his race, as being descended from Neoptolemus the slayer of Priam. By his harsh treatment of Thebes, he incurred the displeasure of Dionysus, the god of wine, said to have been born in that city, and one of the principal figures in Theban legend. It was to inspirations of the offended Dionysus that Alexander believed himself to owe that ungovernable drunken passion under which he afterwards killed Kleitus, as well as the refusal of his Macedonian soldiers to follow him farther into India.[101] If Alexander in after days thus repented of his own act, we may be sure that the like repugnance was felt still more strongly by others; and we can understand the sentiment under which, a few years after his decease, the Macedonian Kassander, son of Antipater, restored the destroyed city.
[99] Plutarch, Alex. 11. ἡ μὲν πόλις ἥλω καὶ διαρπασθεῖσα κατεσκάφη, τὸ μὲν ὅλον προσδοκήσαντος αὐτοῦ τοὺς Ἕλληνας πάθει τηλικούτῳ ἐκπλαγέντας καὶ πτήξαντας ἀτρεμήσειν, ἄλλως δὲ καὶ καλλωπισαμένου χαρίζεσθαι τοῖς τῶν συμμάχων ἐγκλήμασιν.
[100] Arrian, i. 11, 13. To illustrate farther the feeling of the Greeks, respecting the wrath of the gods arising from the discontinuance of worship where it had been long continued—I transcribe a passage from Colonel Sleeman’s work respecting the Hindoos, whose religious feelings are on so many points analogous to those of the Hellênes:—
“Human sacrifices were certainly offered in the city of Saugor during the whole Mahratta government, up to the year 1800—when they were put a stop to by the local governor, Assa Sahib, a very humane man. I once heard a learned Brahmin priest say, that he thought the decline of his (Assa Sahib’s) family and government arose from this innovation. ‘There is (said he) no sin in not offering human sacrifices to the gods, where none have been offered; but where the gods have been accustomed to them, they are very naturally annoyed when the rite is abolished, and visit the place and the people with all kinds of calamity.’ The priest did not seem to think that there was anything singular in this mode of reasoning: perhaps three Brahmin priests out of four would have reasoned in the same manner.” (Sleeman, Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official, vol. i. ch. xv. p. 130).
[101] Plutarch, Alex. 13: compare Justin, xi. 4; and Isokrates ad Philipp. (Or. v. s. 35), where he recommends Thebes to Philip on the ground of pre-eminent worship towards Herakles.
It deserves notice, that while Alexander himself repented of the destruction of Thebes, the macedonizing orator at Athens describes it as a just, though deplorable penalty, brought by the Thebans upon themselves by reckless insanity of conduct (Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 524).
At the time, however, the effect produced by the destruction of Thebes was one of unmitigated terror throughout the Grecian cities. All of them sought to make their peace with the conqueror. The Arcadian contingent not only returned home from the Isthmus, but even condemned their leaders to death. The Eleians recalled their chief macedonizing citizens out of exile into ascendency at home. Each tribe of Ætolians sent envoys to Alexander, entreating forgiveness for the manifestations against him. At Athens, we read with surprise that on the very day when Thebes was assaulted and taken, the great festival of Eleusinian Dêmêtêr, with its multitudinous procession of votaries from Athens to Eleusis, was actually taking place, at a distance of two days’ march from the besieged city. Most Theban fugitives who contrived to escape, fled to Attica as the nearest place of refuge, communicating to the Athenians their own distress and terror. The festival was forthwith suspended. Every one hurried within the walls of Athens,[102] carrying with him his movable property into a state of security. Under the general alarm prevalent, that the conqueror would march directly into Attica, and under the hurry of preparation for defence,—the persons both most alarmed and most in real danger were, of course, Demosthenes, Lykurgus, Charidemus, and those others who had been loudest in speech against Macedonia, and had tried to prevail on the Athenians to espouse openly the cause of Thebes. Yet notwithstanding such terror of consequences to themselves, the Athenians afforded shelter and sympathy to the miserable Theban fugitives. They continued to do this even when they must have known that they were contravening the edict of proscription just sanctioned by Alexander.
[102] Arrian, i. 10, 4.
Shortly afterwards, envoys arrived from that monarch with a menacing letter, formally demanding the surrender of eight or ten leading citizens of Athens—Demosthenes, Lykurgus, Hyperides, Polyeuktus, Mœroklês, Diotimus,[103] Ephialtes, and Charidemus. Of these the first four were eminent orators, the last two military men; all strenuous advocates of an anti-Macedonian policy. Alexander in his letter denounced the ten as the causes of the battle of Chæroneia, of the offensive resolutions which had been adopted at Athens after the death of Philip, and even of the recent hostile proceedings of the Thebans.[104] This momentous summons, involving the right of free speech and public debate at Athens, was submitted to the assembly. A similar demand had just been made upon the Thebans, and the consequences of refusal were to be read no less plainly in the destruction of their city than in the threats of the conqueror. That even under such trying circumstances, neither orators nor people failed in courage—we know as a general fact; though we have not the advantage (as Livy had in his time) of reading the speeches made in the debate.[105] Demosthenes, insisting that the fate of the citizens generally could not be severed from that of the specific victims, is said to have recounted in the course of his speech, the old fable—of the wolf requiring the sheep to make over to him their protecting dogs, as a condition of peace—and then, devouring the unprotected sheep forthwith. He, and those demanded along with him, claimed the protection of the people, in whose cause alone they had incurred the wrath of the conqueror. Phokion on the other hand—silent at first, and rising only under constraint by special calls from the popular voice—contended that there was not force enough to resist Alexander, and that the persons in question must be given up. He even made appeal to themselves individually, reminding them of the self-devotion of the daughters of Erechtheus, memorable in Attic legend—and calling on them to surrender themselves voluntarily for the purpose of perverting public calamity He added, that he (Phokion) would rejoice to offer up either himself, or his best friend, if by such sacrifice he could save the city.[106] Lykurgus, one of the orators whose extradition was required, answered this speech of Phokion with vehemence and bitterness; and the public sentiment went along with him, indignantly repudiating Phokion’s advice. By a resolute patriotism highly honorable at this trying juncture, it was decreed that the persons demanded should not be surrendered.[107]
[103] The name of Diotimus is mentioned by Arrian (i. 10, 6), but not by Plutarch; who names Demon instead of him (Plutarch, Demosth. c. 23) and Kallisthenes instead of Hyperides. We know nothing about Diotimus, except that Demosthenes (De Coronâ, p. 264) alludes to him along with Charidemus, as having received an expression of gratitude from the people, in requital for a present of shields which he had made. He is mentioned also, along with Charidemus and others, in the third of the Demosthenic epistles, p. 1482.
[104] Arrian, i. 10, 6; Plutarch, Vit. X. Orat. p. 847. ἐξῄτει αὐτὸν (Demosthenes) ἀπειλὼν εἰ μὴ δοίησαν. Diodor. xvii. 15; Plutarch, Demosth. 23.
[105] Livy; ix. 18. “(Alexander), adversus quem Athenis, in civitate fractâ Macedonum armis, cernente tum maxime prope fumantes Thebarum ruinas, concionari libere ausi sint homines,—id quod ex monumentis orationum patet”, etc.
[106] Plutarch, Phokion, 9-17; Diodor. xvii. 15.
[107] Diodor. xvii. 15. Ὁ δὲ δῆμος τοῦτον μὲν (Phokion) τοῖς θορύβοις ἐξέβαλε, προσάντως ἀκούων τοὺς λόγους.
On the motion of Demades, an embassy was sent to Alexander, deprecating his wrath against the ten, and engaging to punish them by judicial sentence, if any crime could be proved against them. Demades, who is said to have received from Demosthenes a bribe of five talents, undertook this mission. But Alexander was at first inexorable; refusing even to hear the envoys, and persisting in his requisition. It was only by the intervention of a second embassy, headed by Phokion, that a remission of terms was obtained. Alexander was persuaded to withdraw his requisition, and to be satisfied with the banishment of Charidemus and Ephialtes, the two anti-Macedonian military leaders. Both of them accordingly, and seemingly other Athenians with them, passed into Asia, where they took service under Darius.[108]
[108] Arrian, i. 10, 8; Diodor. xvii. 15; Plutarch, Phokion, 17; Justin, xi. 4; Deinarchus cont. Demosth. p. 26.
Arrian states that the visit of Demades with nine other Athenian envoys to Alexander, occurred prior to the demand of Alexander for the extradition of the ten citizens. He (Arrian) affirms that immediately on hearing the capture of Thebes, the Athenians passed a vote, on the motion of Demades, to send ten envoys, for the purpose of expressing satisfaction that Alexander had come home safely from the Illyrians, and that he had punished the Thebans for their revolt. Alexander (according to Arrian) received this mission courteously, but replied by sending a letter to the Athenian people, insisting on the surrender of the ten citizens.
Now both Diodorus and Plutarch represent the mission of Demades as posterior to the demand made by Alexander for the ten citizens; and that it was intended to meet and deprecate that demand.
In my judgment, Arrian’s tale is the less credible of the two. I think it highly improbable that the Athenians would by public vote express satisfaction that Alexander had punished the Thebans for their revolt. If the macedonizing party at Athens was strong enough to carry so ignominious a vote, they would also have been strong enough to carry the subsequent proposition of Phokion—that the ten citizens demanded should be surrendered. The fact, that the Athenians afforded willing shelter to the Theban fugitives, is a farther reason for disbelieving this alleged vote.
It was indeed no part of Alexander’s plan to undertake a siege of Athens, which might prove long and difficult, since the Athenians had a superior naval force, with the sea open to them, and the chance of effective support from Persia. When therefore he saw, that his demand for the ten orators would be firmly resisted, considerations of policy gradually overcame his wrath, and induced him to relax.
Phokion returned to Athens as the bearer of Alexander’s concessions, thus relieving the Athenians from extreme anxiety and peril. His influence—already great and of long standing, since for years past he had been perpetually re-elected general—became greater than ever, while that of Demosthenes and the other anti-Macedonian orators must have been lowered. It was no mean advantage to Alexander, victorious as he was, to secure the incorruptible Phokion as leader of the macedonizing party at Athens. His projects against Persia were mainly exposed to failure from the possibility of opposition being raised against him in Greece by the agency of Persian money and ships. To keep Athens out of such combinations, he had to rely upon the personal influence and party of Phokion, whom he knew to have always dissuaded her from resistance to the ever-growing aggrandizement of his father Philip. In his conversation with Phokion on the intended Asiatic expedition, Alexander took some pains to flatter the pride of Athens by describing her as second only to himself, and as entitled to the headship of Greece, in case any thing should happen to him.[109] Such compliments were suitable to be repeated in the Athenian assembly: indeed the Macedonian prince might naturally prefer the idea of Athenian headship to that of Spartan, seeing that Sparta stood aloof from him, an open recusant.
[109] Plutarch, Phokion, 17; Plutarch, Alexand. 13.
The animosity of Alexander being appeased, Athens resumed her position as a member of the confederacy under his imperial authority. Without visiting Attica, he now marched to the Isthmus of Corinth, where he probably received from various Grecian cities deputations deprecating his displeasure, and proclaiming their submission to his imperial authority. He also probably presided at a meeting of the Grecian synod, where he would dictate the contingents required for his intended Asiatic expedition in the ensuing spring. To the universal deference and submission which greeted him, one exception was found—the Cynic philosopher Diogenes, who resided at Corinth, satisfied with a tub for shelter, and with the coarsest and most self-denying existence. Alexander approached him with a numerous suite, and asked him if he wished for anything; upon which Diogenes is said to have replied,—“Nothing, except that you would stand a little out of my sunshine.” Both the philosopher and his reply provoked laughter from the bystanders, but Alexander himself was so impressed with the independent and self-sufficing character manifested, that he exclaimed,—“If I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes.”[110]
[110] Plutarch, Alex. 14.
Having visited the oracle of Delphi, and received or extorted from the priestess[111] an answer bearing favorable promise for his Asiatic schemes, he returned to Macedonia before the winter. The most important permanent effect of his stay in Greece was the reconstitution of Bœotia; that is, the destruction of Thebes, and the reconstitution of Orchomenus, Thespiæ, and Platæa, dividing between them the Theban territory; all guarded and controlled by a Macedonian garrison in the Kadmeia. It would have been interesting to learn some details about this process of destruction and restitution of the Bœotian towns; a process not only calling forth strong manifestations of sentiment, but also involving important and difficult questions to settle. But unfortunately we are not permitted to know anything beyond the general fact.
[111] Plutarch, Alex. 14.
Alexander left Greece for Pella in the autumn of 335 B. C., and never saw it again.
It appears, that during this summer, while he was occupied in his Illyrian and Theban operations, the Macedonian force under Parmenio in Asia had had to contend against a Persian army, or Greek mercenaries, commanded by Memnon the Rhodian. Parmenio, marching into Æolis, besieged and took Grynium; after which he attacked Pitanê, but was compelled by Memnon to raise the siege. Memnon even gained a victory over the Macedonian force under Kallas in the Troad, compelling them to retire to Rhœteum. But he failed in an attempt to surprise Kyzikus, and was obliged to content himself with plundering the adjoining territory.[112] It is affirmed that Darius was engaged this summer in making large preparations, naval as well as military, to resist the intended expedition of Alexander. Yet all that we hear of what was actually done implies nothing beyond a moderate force.
[112] Diodor. xvi. 7.