What has most blotted their reputation is an undeserved charge of apathy, even of cowardice. Again, it derives from surviving speeches of the orators, which so often castigate their hearers and exhort them to war, to the point where we might think the hearers had lost their previous spirit. They had not; war and finance, rather, had changed. Distant naval campaigns were needed to safeguard Athenian interests, but there was not the money to pay Athenian crews properly. For long absences, hired mercenaries were preferred anyway, to be funded by whatever means their generals abroad could contrive. At critical points, nonetheless, Athenian soldiers would still turn out to risk their lives, in 359 BC BC in Macedon, in spring 352 against Philip at Thermopylae, in 348 in Euboea and in the north and in 338 against Philip (almost successfully) for the vital battle of Chaeronea. These expeditions are not directly the subject of major surviving speeches on foreign policy, but they are proofs of Athenians' civic commitment. in Macedon, in spring 352 against Philip at Thermopylae, in 348 in Euboea and in the north and in 338 against Philip (almost successfully) for the vital battle of Chaeronea. These expeditions are not directly the subject of major surviving speeches on foreign policy, but they are proofs of Athenians' civic commitment.

Among these speeches, the masterpieces are by Demosthenes, the greatest of Athenian orators. Though slow to wake up to Philip's menace, Demosthenes was then his most effective Athenian opponent, from c. c. 350 350 BC BC to his own brave death in 322. At intervals, the situation was better suited to peace and compromise, as Demosthenes well realized. But the best option (as, arguably, he had long recognized) was for Athenians and Thebans to stand together against the encroaching Macedonians. When this alliance eventually came, Demosthenes' oratory continued, we may be sure, to inspire it. Philip won, but Demosthenes' speeches on the need to defend freedom against a king whom, increasingly, he saw as the enemy of democracy, were a victory too. Philip's biography was never written in antiquity, but for more than a thousand years Demosthenes' speeches were to be the texts which men imitated, copied and knew by heart. to his own brave death in 322. At intervals, the situation was better suited to peace and compromise, as Demosthenes well realized. But the best option (as, arguably, he had long recognized) was for Athenians and Thebans to stand together against the encroaching Macedonians. When this alliance eventually came, Demosthenes' oratory continued, we may be sure, to inspire it. Philip won, but Demosthenes' speeches on the need to defend freedom against a king whom, increasingly, he saw as the enemy of democracy, were a victory too. Philip's biography was never written in antiquity, but for more than a thousand years Demosthenes' speeches were to be the texts which men imitated, copied and knew by heart.

PART THREE.

h.e.l.lenistic Worlds.

The reconstruction and transformation of the bureaucratic system of the East, according to a general plan and with a definite purpose, must be recognized as one of the most astonishing achievements of the Greek genius, and as evidence of its flexibility and adaptability.

M. I. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the The Social and Economic History of the h.e.l.lenistic World, volume II (1941), 1080 Some historians have written of the equilibrium established by the early Ptolemies. The phrase will serve if a.n.a.lysed as follows: Egypt was a country of, say, seven million Egyptians and 100,000 immigrants. The latter cla.s.s could not expect to maintain a claim to an equal, much less to a larger, share of the products unless they contributed (or were considered to contribute) a qualitatively much more important share. To create the illusion was the task of statesmanship. (Ptolemy I) Soter, and more surprisingly (Ptolemy III) Euergetes, succeeded in the task. (Ptolemy II) Philadelphus had every advantage in his favour, but pressed his successes too hard and frittered away his a.s.sets. After the battle of Raphia in 217 BC followed sterile stalemate. BC followed sterile stalemate.

Sir Eric Turner, in The Cambridge Ancient History The Cambridge Ancient History, volume VII part 1 (1984, 2nd edn.), 167

21.

Alexander the Great.

When King Darius sent him a letter asking him to accept 10,000 talents in return for the prisoners, all the land west of the river Euphrates, one of his daughters in marriage and friendship and alliance, Alexander put the terms to his companions. 'If I were Alexander,' Parmenion said, 'I would accept these terms.' 'And so would I,' said Alexander, 'if I were Parmenion.'Plutarch, Life of Alexander Life of Alexander 29.4 29.4 The rise of Macedon marked the end of the cla.s.sical age by curtailing Greek freedom and placing kings and their courtiers at the centre of power and the city-states' public affairs. Luxury, increased by conquest, now characterized the new ruling cla.s.s and the big showy style of so much of their post-cla.s.sical 'h.e.l.lenistic' art. Philip's 'h.e.l.lenic Alliance' did proclaim the 'freedom' and the 'autonomy' of its members. It did also impinge on the conduct of justice: disputes between city-states were to be referred to arbitration, and, by a 'letter', the king could 'advise' the judicial treatment of 'traitors'. But freedom and justice are not the explanation of his Macedon's success. Philip and his men were not really fighting for Greek freedom: it was proclaimed as a means to an end, the advancement of their own power.

Philip's rise is better explained by his military innovations, his personal skill as an absolute king and once again, by conquest and access to new sources of precious metal, the two great agents of economic growth in antiquity. By conquest, Philip increased his sources of military manpower and changed the social profile of his kingdom. Macedonians were settled on rich land taken from the free Greek cities on his eastern borders; they could then sustain horses and become his new cavalrymen. War captives were brought back into Macedon as slaves, a labour-force for the newly developed mines and, surely, for farms whose owners could then be recruited as a professional standing army, available throughout the year. There was also, as we shall see later at Rome, a motivating set of values. A Macedonian king grew up to admire glory won in war, as did his followers. If he won it, he continued to enjoy their support. In this post-Homeric world, there was no question of ruling by being peaceful. The more a king conquered, the more secure his personal kingship became, and the more his resources for yet more conquest.

These values were to be realized by Philip's most famous memorial, his son Alexander the Great, who took the dynamic of glory, gain and conquest to unprecedented lengths. Born in July 356, Alexander succeeded his murdered father in 336; five years later, aged twenty-five, he had conquered the great armies of the Persian king in Asia and had taken over the palaces and treasures of the Persian Empire which were more than two hundred years old. Incomparably richer than anyone known in previous Greek history, he pressed eastwards into India, bound for the Outer Ocean, so he believed, which encircled the world. n.o.body from Greece had ever seen India and, like his tutor Aristotle, Alexander underestimated its vast size and population. Like conquistadors, his troops entered the kingdoms of an unknown Indian world. They believed they were following the trail of the G.o.d Dionysus and the hero Heracles. They saw elephants and Brahmins, but they only heard of people who lived up in the high mountains, our Himalayas, and ran with their feet turned backwards. These people could not survive at low alt.i.tudes, they believed, and so they could not be brought into camp: Alexander's troops were the first westerners to hear of the fabled yeti, the Abominable Snowman of these mountain-peaks. Forty years earlier, their fathers had been the playthings of warring Athens and Thebes.

Aristotle, Alexander's tutor, had believed that the edge of the world lay just beyond the Hindu Kush mountains. In the pouring rains of a monsoon, Alexander's troops refused to press far into India and investigate, not least because they were hearing reports of a ma.s.sive unknown Indian kingdom which lay beyond them on the river Ganges. Alexander had to return, although he was now leading an army of more than 120,000 men, the biggest such force in Western history, the majority of whom were Indians, Iranians and barbarians, recently his enemies. At the mouth of the river Indus, in what is now Pakistan, he did manage to sacrifice to Outer Ocean as if at the southern edge of the world. It was a second-best, and he marched back towards Babylon, where he died less than two years later, aged thirty-two years and ten months. He was not poisoned, but perhaps he had caught malaria in the previous weeks. Inevitably, his officers blamed one another, or even the pupils of Aristotle, for having poisoned him, starting these rumours against one another in their struggle for his succession.

Like Alexander, the Emperor Hadrian also made a dedication to Outer Ocean, but his was made in the north of the world, at the mouth of the river Tyne in Britain, which Alexander never knew. Hadrian visited Alexander's great city, Alexandria in Egypt, and our best surviving narrative of Alexander's campaigns was written by one of Hadrian's provincial governors, Arrian, a keen hunting man, like his hero. If he wished, Hadrian could certainly have found out much more about Alexander than we can, as many more histories were surviving in his day than in ours.

As a general, Alexander remained globally famous, but his conquests were essentially won with the army which Philip had created. His favourite battle-tactic was already Philip's: an angled charge with the cavalry from one wing, drawing the enemy sideways to cover it, then a turn inwards in pointed formation towards the enemy's centre, which this manoeuvre had unbalanced. It was followed up by the infantry in the centre, armed with the long pike, or sarissa sarissa, which was swished up and down like the quills, observers said, of a terrifying porcupine. Alexander's crack troops were Philip's Shield-bearers, hardened infantry who savaged the Indian armies and their elephants, even when many of them, Philip's recruits, were already over sixty years old. They survived Alexander, and remained the world's most lethal troopers, a refutation of our modern ideas of 'old age'. Even the plan to invade Asia was Philip's own, as were the Greek experts in artillery who added torsion-power to the stone-throwing catapults and designed ever bigger machinery and siege towers for the a.s.saults on city-walls.

Unlike Philip, Alexander interpreted 'Asia' to mean the world to its (supposed) eastern edge, not simply all or part of the Persian Empire. On the way east, unlike Philip, he was a supremely successful besieger. He never lost a battle and his minor campaigns were masterpieces of audacity and hardly credible stamina. He was lethal up an Indian mountain-peak or alone in a Lebanese forest. He led his men from the front, although this inspiring habit nearly killed him in 325 BC BC when he jumped down off a city-wall in India single-handedly into a terrified crowd of Indian archers. He took the island city of Tyre by building a mole across the sea; he flattened the rebellious city of Thebes, Philip's uneasy ally, and sold the inhabitants into slavery (as Philip had done to many Greek cities in the north). In one spectacular evening, encouraged by wine, women and song, he and his men burned the Persians' ceremonial capital, Persepolis, to the ground. Yet he was also extraordinarily canny. He could trick opponents by a series of stratagems; he was a master of what military theorists now teach as 'dynamic manoeuvres'; he could split his forces and co-ordinate them in a planned campaign. He was cool enough to take huge risks, but intelligent enough to adapt them to the weak points of his ever-changing enemies. He also helped his progress by an appropriate political 'spin'. Philip had given his Asian invasion an artful presentation as a campaign of revenge; Alexander publicized a 'dossier' of letters exchanged with the Persian king Darius in which he 'justified' his aggression in terms of previous Persian aggression and interference. After three years as the avenger of Persian outrages, he then recycled himself as the respectful heir of Cyrus, the first great Persian king. Behind the spin, he had been determined to rule and retain his conquests in Asia from the very start. when he jumped down off a city-wall in India single-handedly into a terrified crowd of Indian archers. He took the island city of Tyre by building a mole across the sea; he flattened the rebellious city of Thebes, Philip's uneasy ally, and sold the inhabitants into slavery (as Philip had done to many Greek cities in the north). In one spectacular evening, encouraged by wine, women and song, he and his men burned the Persians' ceremonial capital, Persepolis, to the ground. Yet he was also extraordinarily canny. He could trick opponents by a series of stratagems; he was a master of what military theorists now teach as 'dynamic manoeuvres'; he could split his forces and co-ordinate them in a planned campaign. He was cool enough to take huge risks, but intelligent enough to adapt them to the weak points of his ever-changing enemies. He also helped his progress by an appropriate political 'spin'. Philip had given his Asian invasion an artful presentation as a campaign of revenge; Alexander publicized a 'dossier' of letters exchanged with the Persian king Darius in which he 'justified' his aggression in terms of previous Persian aggression and interference. After three years as the avenger of Persian outrages, he then recycled himself as the respectful heir of Cyrus, the first great Persian king. Behind the spin, he had been determined to rule and retain his conquests in Asia from the very start.

Alexander's bold, impulsive nature owed much to his extreme youth. It was enhanced, however, by two singular supports. His father Philip had given him a good Greek education, shared with the young sons of Macedonian n.o.bles, Philip's newly formed corps of Royal Pages, who became Alexander's supporting officers. The pupil of Aristotle, Alexander read Greek texts, staged Greek dramas to entertain his army across Asia and shared his men's fascination with the new world around them which seemed at times to recall the old myths of the Greeks. But he also modelled himself on the supreme hero of Homer's epics, Achilles. He ran naked to the supposed site of Achilles' tomb at Troy, while his male lover, Hephaestion, crowned the tomb of Achilles's beloved Patroclus. He placed his copy of Homer's Iliad Iliad, annotated by Aristotle, in the most precious casket captured from the Persian king. When the Athenians sent him an amba.s.sador called Achilles, he granted them their request. In Alexander, Homer found his most avid over-interpreter.

In Macedonian society, this personal rivalry with a Homeric hero was not entirely misplaced. The king ruled by prowess among his Companions and, as Philip had shown, he had to bestow gifts and strive for personal esteem; the heroic world of Homer's epics was not so remote from Macedonian values. Like a very special hero, Alexander also came to believe that he was the begotten child of a G.o.d. Again, there were Greek precedents, in the Spartan royal family, in the ruling family at Syracuse and even, admirers said, in Plato the philosopher, the 'begotten son of Apollo'.1 Alexander publicized this personal claim after his visit to an oracle in the Siwah oasis on the borders of Libya and Egypt. Its G.o.d, Ammon, had often been consulted by Greeks before him and was understood to be Zeus; its priest greeted Alexander, Egypt's new ruler, as 'son of Zeus'. It was said that his mother Olympias had already hinted that Alexander's father was more than human, a view which her eventual quarrels with Philip may have reinforced in her. Certainly, Alexander prized his divine sonship. He also honoured the G.o.d when he reached, as second-best, the 'Outer' Indian Ocean: his sacrifices here were announced as being 'in accordance with Ammon's oracular words'. Alexander publicized this personal claim after his visit to an oracle in the Siwah oasis on the borders of Libya and Egypt. Its G.o.d, Ammon, had often been consulted by Greeks before him and was understood to be Zeus; its priest greeted Alexander, Egypt's new ruler, as 'son of Zeus'. It was said that his mother Olympias had already hinted that Alexander's father was more than human, a view which her eventual quarrels with Philip may have reinforced in her. Certainly, Alexander prized his divine sonship. He also honoured the G.o.d when he reached, as second-best, the 'Outer' Indian Ocean: his sacrifices here were announced as being 'in accordance with Ammon's oracular words'.2 It seems, then, that at Siwah in 332/1, he had already asked the G.o.d which G.o.ds to honour when he reached the Ocean, the edge of the world. When he asked the question, aged twenty-four, he had not yet defeated the Persians' grand army. The question says much for his priorities and for the self-confidence which helped to realize them. It seems, then, that at Siwah in 332/1, he had already asked the G.o.d which G.o.ds to honour when he reached the Ocean, the edge of the world. When he asked the question, aged twenty-four, he had not yet defeated the Persians' grand army. The question says much for his priorities and for the self-confidence which helped to realize them.

The role-model of a hero and the parentage of a G.o.d supported Alexander's innate energy and boundless ambition. No doubt his edgy relationship with his own father, Philip, also accentuated his own endless wish to excel. The result was a conquest which changed the horizons of the Greek world. As a result, the army and military style of the Persian kings were replaced by Macedonian training and troops, as first mapped out by Philip. The festivals and ideals of Persian kingship were replaced by the Macedonians' personal royal style. At least sixteen new cities were founded by Alexander at promising points across Asia, while tradition credited him, questionably, with many more. These cities were not just military outposts, a type of settlement which he also founded. They were meant to be famous, to their founder's glory, and to that end they were placed, where possible, near accessible routes for trade and exchange. One city commemorated Alexander's n.o.ble horse, Bucephalas, who carried him for more than seventeen years; typically, another commemorated his dog. The cities, with Greek settlers, were centres of Greek language and Greek entertainments, including athletic games and the inevitable theatre. But local non-Greeks were also settled in some of them. Once, in Sogdia, rebel prisoners were given to the residents of a new Alexandria as slaves, but elsewhere local non-Greeks were included as volunteers. Alexander's close friend, his admiral Nearchus, explained that Alexander founded townships in Iran so that the nomads should become 'cultivators of the fields and as they would have something for which they would be anxious, they would not do one another harm'.3 The plan may have failed, but it is certainly not anachronistic to ascribe a 'civilizing' vision to some of Alexander's foundations. Previous Macedonian kings had had similar aims with their cultural patronage and new towns back in rough uncivilized Macedon itself. The plan may have failed, but it is certainly not anachronistic to ascribe a 'civilizing' vision to some of Alexander's foundations. Previous Macedonian kings had had similar aims with their cultural patronage and new towns back in rough uncivilized Macedon itself.

Alexander had also inherited from Philip the aim of freeing the Greeks of Asia. Within a year, he had largely done so, and was encouraging democracies as the alternative to Persian-backed oligarchies. Tribute from the Greek cities was abolished, a unique favour in these cities' history of relations with greater powers. Freedom, in consequence, became equated with democracy in the Greek city-states. Elsewhere, in non-Greek Asia, in Babylon or Egypt or Cyprus or Sidon, Alexander could capitalize on recent grievances against Persian rule and offer 'freedom', in the sense of self-government ('autonomy') as an alternative. But he also inherited here the Persian king's system of taxation and claims to ultimate control. Outside the territories of Greek cities, the 'land', as one of his early rulings proclaimed, 'I recognize as mine'.4 His governors oversaw it, while troops were kept strictly in the hands of Greek and Macedonian governors. Tribute continued to be paid as before, but in return, his troops and governors kept the peace (or so he hoped) and in India stopped the existing local wars. His governors oversaw it, while troops were kept strictly in the hands of Greek and Macedonian governors. Tribute continued to be paid as before, but in return, his troops and governors kept the peace (or so he hoped) and in India stopped the existing local wars.

In Asia, therefore, there was a real increase of freedom for most of the Greek cities, but for other people there was peace after slaughter and a subtle change of master: in Arabia or in India, no less than in Greek Asia, Alexander did persuade himself, at least, that he was granting 'autonomy', even to non-Greeks. In Greece, meanwhile, Philip's well-armoured peace between the Greek allies remained in force. Those Greeks who sought justice under its terms could turn, as always, to local arbitrators or to the courts of their home city-states: in theory there was no limit to the penalties, except exile, which these local courts could impose. To settle disputes between Greek cities, the League in Greece might also appoint arbitrators. 'Justice', therefore, had a new framework in Greece, although the freedom of local 'leagues' and city-states was restricted by it. In Asia, meanwhile, Greek cities continued to operate their own courts, but there was always the possibility of sending an emba.s.sy to the king himself for a higher ruling. Alexander had not put the eastern Greek cities into his father's h.e.l.lenic Alliance. He personally had freed them, and after const.i.tutional upheavals in such cities he himself might prescribe a new political settlement by letter. In summer 334, he implied to the restored democracy on the island of Chios that he personally would read through their proposed new law-code so as to check that nothing in it was contrary to their democratic future. In these cities, the question of exiles and their peaceful restoration remained the object of his personal intervention; he even specified, by letter, that their cases should be judged by jurors using a 'secret ballot'. Inevitably, within the local framework of a 'free' city's laws, Alexander's own edicts by letter did acquire an irresistible power.

Outside the Greek cities, aggrieved parties throughout Asia could appeal to a local governor or to one of Alexander's underlings in the hope of an enforceable ruling. They might even gain access to the king himself and aspire to a judgement in their favour (they would need an interpreter to present the case). In Asia, therefore, justice remained at the dispensation of a king's local officials, as before. There were no judicial reforms or new const.i.tutions for his non-Greek subjects, but here and there (where a tradition of local laws existed) Alexander did publicize a return to pre-Persian rulings.

His conquests also multiplied the scope for gain and luxury beyond any Greek's wildest dreams. Whereas Philip's income had hardly sufficed to mount an invasion of Asia, Alexander's allowed him the most lavish displays in Greek history. Ten thousand talents, about ten times the yearly income of Pericles' Athens, were expended on a single celebration, a royal wedding or banquet. His Companions dined on couches with silver feet; individual officers were said to own fine hunting-nets a mile or more in length; even the staid elderly officer, Polyperchon, one of Philip's men, was said to dance in a saffron cloak and slippers.5 Drink had always flowed freely at the Macedonian court, and it came to flow very freely in Alexander's later years. There were nights when Alexander sat up drinking until dawn. At the funeral celebrations of an Indian wise man at his court, the winner in a drinking contest drained several gallons, while the runners-up included several Indians, who died in the aftermath. When Alexander married two more brides from the Persian royal houses near the end of his life, the occasion was celebrated with lavish gifts and his audience-tent was enlarged into the most magnificent marquee. Even the big curtain-poles were made of gold. Drink had always flowed freely at the Macedonian court, and it came to flow very freely in Alexander's later years. There were nights when Alexander sat up drinking until dawn. At the funeral celebrations of an Indian wise man at his court, the winner in a drinking contest drained several gallons, while the runners-up included several Indians, who died in the aftermath. When Alexander married two more brides from the Persian royal houses near the end of his life, the occasion was celebrated with lavish gifts and his audience-tent was enlarged into the most magnificent marquee. Even the big curtain-poles were made of gold.

At his death, Alexander was planning further conquests in Arabia (whose scale he perhaps underestimated) and then possibly a march into the West against Carthage and north Africa. His aims, of course, are disputed, but in my view he had decided early on to march to the eastern edge of the world; when he was denied it, he went down to what he thought was a southern edge (the Indian Ocean); at his death he was exploring a possible northern edge (the Caspian Sea) and surely, therefore, thinking of conquering to the western edge (the Atlantic Ocean). His 'geography' was only slightly less mistaken than Aristotle's, but it set his ambitions.

What was his s.e.xual nature? He was not a one-way h.o.m.os.e.xual. During eleven years on the march, he married the Bactrian Roxane and two Persian brides, taking three wives as opposed to Philip's seven. He also fathered a child on another Persian mistress, and perhaps one on an Indian chieftain, and was said in court gossip to have slept for twelve days with a visiting 'Queen of the Amazons' near the Caspian Sea. Since early boyhood he had also loved Hephaestion, whose death before his own drove him to extreme grief. Plainly, there was a h.o.m.o-erotic s.e.xual element to his love for his 'Patroclus', but their love was more than just s.e.x. In Asia, Alexander also had s.e.x with a Persian court-eunuch, Bagoas, who joined him in 330 and was made one of the ship-captains, the only foreigner, when Alexander's fleet turned for home down the river Indus in 326. The fairest modern label for his s.e.x-life is 'bis.e.xual': Philip was said to have behaved likewise, and h.o.m.oerotic s.e.x was part of the lifestyle of his Royal Pages. As in contemporary Athens, so in Macedon a s.e.xual love for a boy was something which a man could profess openly, without discredit. We do not know what his accompanying Indians thought of it.

As a pa.s.sionate man, Alexander had his drunken moments and his outbursts of rage; they culminated in the dark evening in late 328 BC BC when he personally killed one of his father's veteran Companions, Cleitus, at a party. His life was emphatically not lived without moral blots and stains; his ambition also killed tens of thousands of Indians who refused to surrender and be his subjects rather than subjects of their existing kings, and his army plundered the goods and supplies of countless families in order to feed themselves as they crossed Asia. However, after the initial conquest, further looting and violence were not Alexander's idea of ruling his subjects. He had a magic which was personally exercised for the troops who loved him, and we must do justice to it too, and the accompanying extravagance of his youth. Such were his feats, his benefactions and his capacity for favours that some of the Greek cities spontaneously offered him 'honours equal to those for the G.o.ds'. Sometimes they were offered in admiration or grat.i.tude, at other times as hopeful flattery. Benefaction, in the sense of material favours, was central to Greek ideas of a G.o.d; Alexander was as capable of it as almost any Olympian G.o.d, while his prowess, as far as India, rivalled most Olympians' known deeds. There had been divine cults previously for Greek men of power and achievement, but they only became an established practice among Greeks because of Alexander's exceptional prowess. But he himself knew very well that he was mortal, and he continued to honour the immortal G.o.ds and to obey their oracles. His own religious life remained traditional, rooted in Greek practice and precedent. when he personally killed one of his father's veteran Companions, Cleitus, at a party. His life was emphatically not lived without moral blots and stains; his ambition also killed tens of thousands of Indians who refused to surrender and be his subjects rather than subjects of their existing kings, and his army plundered the goods and supplies of countless families in order to feed themselves as they crossed Asia. However, after the initial conquest, further looting and violence were not Alexander's idea of ruling his subjects. He had a magic which was personally exercised for the troops who loved him, and we must do justice to it too, and the accompanying extravagance of his youth. Such were his feats, his benefactions and his capacity for favours that some of the Greek cities spontaneously offered him 'honours equal to those for the G.o.ds'. Sometimes they were offered in admiration or grat.i.tude, at other times as hopeful flattery. Benefaction, in the sense of material favours, was central to Greek ideas of a G.o.d; Alexander was as capable of it as almost any Olympian G.o.d, while his prowess, as far as India, rivalled most Olympians' known deeds. There had been divine cults previously for Greek men of power and achievement, but they only became an established practice among Greeks because of Alexander's exceptional prowess. But he himself knew very well that he was mortal, and he continued to honour the immortal G.o.ds and to obey their oracles. His own religious life remained traditional, rooted in Greek practice and precedent.

Above all, Alexander had an emotional bond with his men, maintained through storm and desert, wounds and hardship and the many moments when he and his commanders had no idea where they were on the map. They had marched on foot against vastly bigger armies and they had seen deserts, cities, mountains and elephants which none had ever imagined in his youth. Some of them had ridden without stirrups and without saddles, forming into pointed formations for the sudden shock of battle-charge, those moments of 'all or nothing' which are the moments for glory, to be won at the expense of enemies and sustained, for years, with ever-enlarging stories. When Alexander lay dying, 'his soldiers longed to see him, some of them so as to see him alive, others because... they thought his death was being concealed from them by his bodyguards. Most of them were driven to see Alexander by grief and longing for their king. As the army processed past him, he was unable to speak, but he gestured to each of them, lifting his head with difficulty and signalling to them with his eyes.'6 Like us, they were left unsure exactly what their king had in mind. Like us, they were left unsure exactly what their king had in mind.

22.

Alexander's Early Successors When Seleucus saw that his troops were terrified, he kept on encouraging them, telling them that it was not fitting for men who had campaigned with Alexander and been promoted by him for their courage to rely solely on power and money. They should use experience and clever understanding, the means by which Alexander, too, had accomplished his great and universally admired deeds... Alexander had stood beside him in a dream and clearly signified about the future leadership which he was destined to attain as time went by...

Diodorus, 19.90, as Seleucus rides off to Babylon (312 BC) It was on 10 June 323 that Alexander died in Babylon. By a remarkable chance, we have the clay tablet on which a Babylonian scribe recorded the event in a day-by-day chronicle: 'The King died,' he noted. 'Clouds...'1 None of the surviving Greek or Roman sources mentions the clouds. Instead, they dwell on the bonfire of personal ambition which the unexpected death of the king ignited. Alexander left no designated heir, but his Bactrian wife, Roxane, was already six months pregnant. He had a half-brother, Philip Arrhidaeus, who was also in his thirties, but this son of King Philip and a Thessalian mother was half-witted. Already there were the makings of a stupendous struggle. The unborn baby would be half-barbarian and, like the defective Arrhidaeus, it would need guardians to exercise real power in its name.

The first struggle, therefore, was for the 'guardianship' of the royal line. But which line? From 330 BC BC onwards, young Alexander had practised the 'inclusion' of Persians and other Iranians into positions of honour around him and eventually even into the inner, world-conquering units of his Macedonian army. He had married the Bactrian Roxane; he had loved the eunuch Bagoas; he had had 30,000 Iranian boys trained in Macedonian weaponry and ent.i.tled them his 'Successors'; in one spectacular ceremony, he had even married off ninety-two of his Macedonian officers to Iranian brides (arranging that any children of his and Hephaestion's brides should be cousins); at the same moment he had given presents to no less than 10,000 of his troops who had already 'married' Asian women too. This inclusion had gone way beyond a mere recruitment into supporting units so as to keep up his army's manpower. It put barbarians into the great Companion cavalry and made a few of them Companion n.o.bles. Alexander did not need to do this. It was a principle of the king, the recruitment of 'Alexander's men', irrespective of origin, ethnicity and background, into an inclusive court and army of the future: 'Zeus', he was remembered as saying, 'is the father of all men,' as in Homer, 'but he makes the best particularly his own.' onwards, young Alexander had practised the 'inclusion' of Persians and other Iranians into positions of honour around him and eventually even into the inner, world-conquering units of his Macedonian army. He had married the Bactrian Roxane; he had loved the eunuch Bagoas; he had had 30,000 Iranian boys trained in Macedonian weaponry and ent.i.tled them his 'Successors'; in one spectacular ceremony, he had even married off ninety-two of his Macedonian officers to Iranian brides (arranging that any children of his and Hephaestion's brides should be cousins); at the same moment he had given presents to no less than 10,000 of his troops who had already 'married' Asian women too. This inclusion had gone way beyond a mere recruitment into supporting units so as to keep up his army's manpower. It put barbarians into the great Companion cavalry and made a few of them Companion n.o.bles. Alexander did not need to do this. It was a principle of the king, the recruitment of 'Alexander's men', irrespective of origin, ethnicity and background, into an inclusive court and army of the future: 'Zeus', he was remembered as saying, 'is the father of all men,' as in Homer, 'but he makes the best particularly his own.'2 So, now, did Alexander, in an 'empire of the best'. Some of his Macedonians, the older ones especially, hated the policy. They had no wish to fraternize with people they had once tried to kill. As soon as he was dead, this hatred erupted. So, now, did Alexander, in an 'empire of the best'. Some of his Macedonians, the older ones especially, hated the policy. They had no wish to fraternize with people they had once tried to kill. As soon as he was dead, this hatred erupted.

Others were more flexible, his younger and closer friends and his cavalrymen, who could accommodate any able fellow lover of horses: they were willing to wait for Roxane's unborn son. Meanwhile, the older Macedonians and the veteran infantry, united by their thick Macedonian Greek dialect, agitated for a Macedonian heir, a son of King Philip, even if he was mentally unsound. There were riots, followed by a compromise: Roxane's child would share the kingship with the half-wit, Philip Arrhidaeus. The most prominent advocate of the settlement was Alexander's trusted Perdiccas, a n.o.ble Macedonian of royal highland descent. After Hephaestion's death, Perdiccas was the man whom Alexander had appointed to be his next 'chiliarch', or second-in-command, with the charge of the most respected unit of cavalry. He was (later) said to have been given Alexander's ring by Alexander himself and even to have received the job of caring for Roxane. On such matters, propaganda proliferated.

Within three days of Alexander's death, the former Persian queen mother had starved herself to death, lamenting (men said) the loss of Alexander: only eight years before, he had been her son's sworn enemy. Amongst Macedonians, there was a complication. Alexander had sent their respected general Craterus back to Macedonia with 10,000 elderly Macedonian veterans whom he had dismissed. Craterus was strongly conservative and was no friend to 'inclusion'. Alexander had ordered him to 'take care of the freedom of the Greeks', a reminder of how that old ideal had now been diluted.3 He was also to replace the elderly Antipater who had been commander in Greece in Alexander's absence. He was also to replace the elderly Antipater who had been commander in Greece in Alexander's absence.

What orders from Alexander might Craterus invent or claim for himself? There was no precedent or system in Macedonian society for dealing with such a crisis. The early death of a childless king had left a vacuum, and somehow the gaps must be filled in. t.i.tles of honour could be quickly invented to placate the senior figures, 'guardian' or 'overseer' or 'chiliarch' (in the sense of 'deputy'). At Babylon, Perdiccas also claimed to have found Alexander's 'Last Plans'. He presented them to the troops, surely intending them to be cancelled: it is quite likely that he and his aides, including the artful Greek secretary Eumenes, had invented them in an evening of frantic improvisation. They were made to include fantastic building projects; one was a temple at Troy, another, a vast mound as 'big as a pyramid' in Philip's honour in Macedon. Plans for Western conquest were added, stretching on through Carthage and beyond. The aim, surely, was that the troops should listen respectfully but reject them. The likes of Craterus could not then appeal to different 'plans' and claim that they were empowered by them. But would the troops be sure to reject even this much? So another vast plan was included: 'transfers of population' between Europe and Asia, so as to bring them into harmony by 'intermarriage and a.s.similation'.4 From a king who had stood up for inclusion, this plan was just credible: the Macedonians, 'Asia-sceptics', dreaded it, and rejected the 'plans', as intended. From a king who had stood up for inclusion, this plan was just credible: the Macedonians, 'Asia-sceptics', dreaded it, and rejected the 'plans', as intended.

Roxane's baby, born in September, was a boy (Alexander IV). Meanwhile, Perdiccas took the lead in Asia with Antipater, now in his seventies, a 'rotten thread' in Macedonia.5 Within twenty-two years, Alexander's kingdom would have fragmented among quite other generals: his lifelong friend Ptolemy, in Egypt; his infantry commander Seleucus, in Asia; his bodyguard, Lysimachus, in Thrace and north-west Asia; Antipater's impetuous son, Ca.s.sander, in Macedon (as Alexander's companion at Babylon, Ca.s.sander was alleged, even, to have helped to have him 'poisoned'). For a while, other major compet.i.tors led troops and played for high stakes: the big, burly Antigonus, one-eyed, with a booming voice, the veteran who had commanded in western Asia throughout Alexander's march east; his flamboyant son, Demetrius, 'brave as a hero and beautiful as a G.o.d, of such majesty that strangers followed him merely to gaze'; Within twenty-two years, Alexander's kingdom would have fragmented among quite other generals: his lifelong friend Ptolemy, in Egypt; his infantry commander Seleucus, in Asia; his bodyguard, Lysimachus, in Thrace and north-west Asia; Antipater's impetuous son, Ca.s.sander, in Macedon (as Alexander's companion at Babylon, Ca.s.sander was alleged, even, to have helped to have him 'poisoned'). For a while, other major compet.i.tors led troops and played for high stakes: the big, burly Antigonus, one-eyed, with a booming voice, the veteran who had commanded in western Asia throughout Alexander's march east; his flamboyant son, Demetrius, 'brave as a hero and beautiful as a G.o.d, of such majesty that strangers followed him merely to gaze';6 the artful Eumenes, no Macedonian himself, but a literate Odysseus of a Greek who had been Alexander's secretary. Until 281 the artful Eumenes, no Macedonian himself, but a literate Odysseus of a Greek who had been Alexander's secretary. Until 281 BC BC wars were waged incessantly between the major partic.i.p.ants and their followers. wars were waged incessantly between the major partic.i.p.ants and their followers.

The first of the long-term winners to show his hand was Ptolemy. He had known Alexander well since childhood; he had even been appointed as his food-taster (obviously a highly responsible job, in a world of poisons). At Babylon, he received rich Egypt as his governor-ship, but he entrenched himself there by conquests in the West (in Libya) and then by invading Cyprus. His weakest frontier lay in the East, causing him to invade Syria repeatedly in a pattern of 'Syrian wars' which would preoccupy his successors for a hundred years and more. Ptolemy was to found the dynasty, the Ptolemies, which ruled Egypt for three hundred years. One of his most artful moves was to seize Alexander's dead body when Perdiccas sent it home from Babylon on a magnificently decorated funeral carriage. One story is that Ptolemy cheated his pursuers by subst.i.tuting a sham corpse: they must have chased him, and so perhaps some such trick is historical.

At first, Ptolemy kept Alexander's body in the old Egyptian capital at Memphis. Later, it was moved down the Nile to Alexandria where a subsequent king, Ptolemy IV, built a magnificent mausoleum, the Sma Sma, for Alexander and the other dead Ptolemies. Rumours that Alexander's tomb has been found continue to attract publicity, but they would have to involve the rediscovery of a huge dynastic monument under the built-up centre of Alexandria. As for his body, it continued to be displayed there to visitors, including the first Roman emperor Augustus, who laid flowers (in 30 BC BC) on the coffin's gla.s.s lid. It was said, perhaps rhetorically, to be still on display in c. c. AD AD 380, but there is no specific reference to a visit to it after one in 380, but there is no specific reference to a visit to it after one in AD AD 215. 215.7 The tomb and the corpse were almost certainly destroyed in one or other great city-riot in Alexandria. The tomb and the corpse were almost certainly destroyed in one or other great city-riot in Alexandria.

Not until 306 BC BC did Ptolemy copy his rivals and, in the absence of any young Macedonian princes, take the t.i.tle of 'king'. From 305 Egyptian scribes recognized him as a Pharaoh-king too. Meanwhile, he had fought off reprisals by Perdiccas and killed him (Perdiccas had lost too many of his troops in the Nile, to crocodiles). He had clashed with the armies of the emergent Antigonus and his son, the dashing Demetrius; he had also posed, less plausibly, as a champion of the 'freedom of the Greeks'. Ptolemy needed Greek military settlers and Greek personnel for his armies and his new province; his plea for 'freedom', however, was not a committed plea for democracy. did Ptolemy copy his rivals and, in the absence of any young Macedonian princes, take the t.i.tle of 'king'. From 305 Egyptian scribes recognized him as a Pharaoh-king too. Meanwhile, he had fought off reprisals by Perdiccas and killed him (Perdiccas had lost too many of his troops in the Nile, to crocodiles). He had clashed with the armies of the emergent Antigonus and his son, the dashing Demetrius; he had also posed, less plausibly, as a champion of the 'freedom of the Greeks'. Ptolemy needed Greek military settlers and Greek personnel for his armies and his new province; his plea for 'freedom', however, was not a committed plea for democracy.

In Greece, meanwhile, many of the Greeks had antic.i.p.ated him. On news of Alexander's death, they had risen in revolt, summoning Greeks to 'freedom' from the Macedonian 'barbarians' in a way which reversed the spin of Alexander's own invasion of Asia. Despite some valiant successes, they were crippled by defeats at sea, leading to the Athenians' capitulation. In 322 BC BC, after more than a hundred and eighty years, the Athenians' democracy was ended by a conqueror, Antipater. Political rights were confined to those Athenians who had moderate property or more; the lowest cla.s.ses were to be exported to the wilds of Thrace.

Only the changing power-struggles of the Successors allowed Athenian democrats to restore their system, briefly in 318, more lastingly in 307. 'Freedom' would remain a much-publicized slogan for Greeks, but it was now a slogan for the competing Macedonian generals to offer. As under Philip and Alexander, it depended on concessions from a powerful overlord. Such concessions continued to be made, however, either to destabilize a rival general or else to secure Greece (and thereby, Macedon) and attract Greek settlers and recruits out into the new dynasties in Asia. There was, then, room for manoeuvre for the Greek city-states, but not for full liberty: since 338 BC BC, under Philip, the Athenians no longer controlled the vital sea-route for their grain-imports from the Black Sea.

In Asia, the wars had two unusual patterns: an absence of local nationalism and a general respect for continuing kingship and legality, even when the 'kings' were a half-wit and a child. Remarkably, none of the people in Asia rose in rebellion during the fights for the succession. Asian recruits even continued to serve copiously in the Macedonians' own competing armies. Meanwhile, the two 'compromise kings', Philip III and Alexander IV, continued to be recognized in public inscriptions in the Greek cities, in Babylonia and in Egypt; the various royal treasuries continued to be guarded punctiliously and made available only to those with royal letters; a royal coinage and a royal calendar (numbering the years by their reigns) continued to prevail, at least until Philip the half-wit was killed in autumn 317 BC BC and then young Alexander IV (with Roxane) in 310 and then young Alexander IV (with Roxane) in 310 BC BC.

Why were there no national revolts? At first, Alexander had re-appointed those Iranian governors who surrendered to him. In his absence in India, some of them then revolted, but other Iranians helped to capture and surrender them. There was no national solidarity, and the Macedonians had the monopoly of trained military force. Perceptions of the conquest also varied according to cla.s.s. For many of their subjects, the Macedonians' victory had meant very little change. Tribute continued to be demanded; local collectors still gathered it. Even when land was given to new beneficiaries, it still had to be worked by the same local workers. Why, then, revolt for more of the same, under a new or old name? Alexander's conquests in India were lost after twenty years, but not because of local nationalism: his emerging general, Seleucus, exchanged them with Chandragupta, a newly emerged Indian military leader from the south, and then for the ma.s.sive price of 500 war-elephants. His conquests in Bactria survived in Graeco-Macedonian hands for more than a hundred and fifty years. In Babylonia, so densely populated, Seleucus himself could profit from good memories of the previous governorship which he had held since the 320s: in 312 BC BC he reinstated himself with a core force of only a few hundred hors.e.m.e.n after a bold gallop back from Syria. All over Asia, non-Greek subjects acquiesced in Macedonian rule or preferred to profit by joining their new masters. he reinstated himself with a core force of only a few hundred hors.e.m.e.n after a bold gallop back from Syria. All over Asia, non-Greek subjects acquiesced in Macedonian rule or preferred to profit by joining their new masters.

Not only were these masters hardened soldiers: they were prepared to fight ma.s.sively against each other. From King Philip's reforms onwards, the Macedonians refute so many of the popular stereotypes about soldiers and the human condition. They fought loyally although they had no votes, no 'republican' freedom to inspire them. In the chaos after Alexander's death, they did start to express approval for one or other leader in their military a.s.semblies, and so consultation of them became a customary necessity. They did not, however, gain any democratic liberty, or even seek it. Nor did they want to retire from the army; Alexander's best Macedonians in India were often over sixty, but they fought on for another ten years, still terrorizing their opponents. After his death they were prepared to fight fellow Macedonians, especially if attacking younger Macedonians from the 'new intake' who had never served the great Alexander. In the absence of a true hereditary king as general, these veterans served whoever could pay them and protect the goods and baggage (including women) which represented their personal riches on the move. At first, endors.e.m.e.nt by the two compromise kings did help the competing generals to win them over, but then the kings were killed off and in the end Alexander's successors were just military men, no more. They were a generation of 'lucky condottieri condottieri',8 whereas Philip and Alexander had been truly dynastic kings of the Macedonian people. whereas Philip and Alexander had been truly dynastic kings of the Macedonian people.

Alexander's own memory and style, therefore, did matter to his would-be heirs. Naturally, they continued the style of his army and tactics, including his one innovation in Greek warfare, use of the elephant. So far as there was an 'arms race', it was only to create ever bigger versions of the same machines as Alexander's, the ships or siege-engines: in 306 young Demetrius could even mobilize fabulous siege-towers, 120 feet high, against the walls of Rhodes (the city survived the siege, nonetheless). By 318 war-elephants, even, were being used against city-walls in Arcadia in Greece: an Indian expert taught the Greek defenders how to conceal spiked planks in the ground before their walls so that the soft undersides of the elephants' feet became impaled. In Syria, Ptolemy then repeated the trick in a pitched battle six years later.

For seven years the prominent career of the non-Macedonian Eumenes showed what an aspiring leader needed to represent in the wake of Alexander. Although he was also a secretary, Eumenes was a wily general; though a Greek, he was not above being drunk (like a good Macedonian) for a night in his army-camp. How ever could such a non-Macedonian lead hardened Macedonian troops? Eumenes had problems with their dialect, but he did know how to make a point to them, by telling them a simple fable about a lion, the sort of story last recorded in our history books in the archaic world of the speeches in Herodotus' 'enquiries'. Lacking Macedonian roots, it was crucial that Eumenes did have letters of royal Macedonian approval from the compromise kings. These letters allowed him to claim money: they even made the famous veteran 'Silver Shields' follow him, because he was validated as the king's man. When some of the big names from Alexander's past joined him, he artfully persuaded these uneasy 'equals' to agree to meet in a tent containing the dead Alexander's throne. His sceptre was placed on it; they all revered Alexander as a G.o.d and when they took counsel, they felt as if a 'G.o.d was leading them on'. Six years after Alexander's death, they could still unite in his unseen presence.

Eumenes' tactics were only a part of a wider imitation of the famous king. Alexander's great multi-racial banquets were imitated in Persia; his Successors were said to imitate his voice or even the way he held his head. The least powerful of them, Lysimachus, was the one who eventually issued the most idealized portrait of a G.o.d-like young Alexander on his silver coins. Like Alexander, himself a pa.s.sionate hunter, the Successors paraded their hunting prowess, claiming to be true 'lion kings': Perdiccas was even said to have taken a lioness's cubs from her den bare-handed. Like Alexander, the Successors received local cults from hopeful or grateful Greek cities, without actually demanding their own worship as G.o.ds. As Seleucus' power in Asia grew, he claimed to have been acknowledged by a great Greek oracle as the begotten son of a G.o.d, like Alexander: the G.o.d was Apollo, the oracle the shrine at Didyma near Miletus. His Iranian queen, Apama, was encouraged to be a benefactress of the site which thus gained its enormous temple, the biggest and finest surviving monument of the early h.e.l.lenistic world.9 By 302 BC BC there were five competing kings, but a year later they were reduced to four when Seleucus defeated the elderly Antigonus and killed him. India had by now been given away, but the rest of Alexander's territories stayed under Greek rule. In 281 there were five competing kings, but a year later they were reduced to four when Seleucus defeated the elderly Antigonus and killed him. India had by now been given away, but the rest of Alexander's territories stayed under Greek rule. In 281 BC BC, after more years of struggle, the four kings became three when Seleucus, an Alexander-survivor, killed off Lysimachus, one of Alexander's bodyguards, at an old site of Persian military settlement, 'Cyrus' Plain', in western Asia. From 281 BC BC until the clashes with Rome, Alexander's Greek world remained split into the resulting three kingdoms: the Seleucid kings in Asia (without India), the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Antigonids in Macedon, bound by garrisons and treaties to the city-states and 'leagues' in Greece. On a long view, the split was not so very new. The previous empire, the Persian, had had recurrent problems in retaining Egypt. The Macedonians had a loose hold on India and had never conquered Greece. The Successors' three-way split, then, was already visible in the early years of the fourth century until the clashes with Rome, Alexander's Greek world remained split into the resulting three kingdoms: the Seleucid kings in Asia (without India), the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Antigonids in Macedon, bound by garrisons and treaties to the city-states and 'leagues' in Greece. On a long view, the split was not so very new. The previous empire, the Persian, had had recurrent problems in retaining Egypt. The Macedonians had a loose hold on India and had never conquered Greece. The Successors' three-way split, then, was already visible in the early years of the fourth century BC BC.

During the years of the dynasts' rivalry, one social group did gain greater prominence: royal and well-born women. Alexander's sister Cleopatra was soon widowed, a prize for the aspiring Successors; until 316, his mother Olympias was still at large in her home kingdom; his niece Adea (Philip's granddaughter), when she was aged only sixteen, proved to have a spirit and public audacity worthy of her military mother. But there were other great women, too, outside the royal house. Antipater's daughter Phila won a good name for charitable actions and sound sense, although she had to endure a marriage to the younger playboy Demetrius. One of the least promising of Alexander's arranged Oriental marriages had been the union of Darius' Persian niece, Amestris, with the staunch Macedonian 'Asia-sceptic' Craterus. He died soon afterwards, having ignored her, but she then married the dynast of a Greek city on the Black Sea and ended, by origin a royal Persian, as the ruler of the city-state.

The honours, not unfittingly, went to Olympias. Brought back to Macedon in 317, she protected her son's half-Bactrian child, Roxane's boy, and attacked the vigorous young Adea who was by now the wife of the half-witted Philip III. In autumn 317 Olympias offered a truly theatrical choice of death to Adea (a dagger, a noose or poison), but within a year she herself had to surrender to her enemies after the most fearful siege in the coastal town of Pydna. It took the relatives of her previous victims to murder her: no less than two hundred soldiers, sent for the purpose, had refused the task 'out of respect for her royal rank'. Her death was worthy of Greek tragedy's overpowering Queen Clytemnestra. But even this tragic drama was excelled on Cyprus by the awesome Axiothea, the queen of Paphos. In Paphos' palace, in 312 BC BC, she made each one of her daughters kill herself before finally taking her own life, rather than fall into the hands of Ptolemy's agents.

In Greece during these years, we hear of prominent courtesans, heirs to the top 'mistresses' of Alexander's own court. None was more famous than the mature Lamia, whose doings with Athens' liberating prince Demetrius remained a topic of witty scandal and comic theatre. In Athens, some of the courtesans are said to have been hearers of the affable philospher Epicurus; we even know of portraits of two distinguished Greek poetesses, Myrto and Anyte. But these women were of minimal public impact compared with the feminine rivals who were active inside the Successors' own palaces.

When praising the Ptolemies, the poet Theocritus cited the quality of being a 'good lover' (ertikos).10 It was different to being a good husband. In almost every Successor family, the kings not only fell repeatedly in love; they actually married a second woman, or more, and fathered more sets of children. Marriage to Cleopatra, his seventh wife, had been the cause of King Philip's murder back in 336, but even so, Alexander left three Iranian wives at his death: Roxane, the new 'queen mother', was said to have been very quick to poison one of the other two brides. In the Successors' families, 'second-wife syndrome' then became rampant, as if no lessons had been learned from the Macedonian past. Ptolemy married one of Antipater's daughters, but then fell in love with one of her Macedonian attendants and married her too: this younger wife's sons became the more favoured sons in Ptolemy's priorities, causing a serious dynastic quarrel with the older children. Lysimachus repeated the same mistake and killed his eldest son by one wife after foolishly marrying another. This family chaos undermined his rule and helped to bring Seleucus against him. Ca.s.sander did no better, and Seleucus only escaped trouble by sharing his kingdom with his son in his lifetime and conceding one of his wives to him: the boy, it was said, was lovesick for her. One-eyed Antigonus was the only steady man in marriage, but his son Demetrius made up for him by his two marriages and his prodigal liaisons with star Greek courtesans. A hunting prince, he never killed a lion, but he did make love to a famous prost.i.tute called 'Lioness' (the name of a s.e.xual position, too). It was different to being a good husband. In almost every Successor family, the kings not only fell repeatedly in love; they actually married a second woman, or more, and fathered more sets of children. Marriage to Cleopatra, his seventh wife, had been the cause of King Philip's murder back in 336, but even so, Alexander left three Iranian wives at his death: Roxane, the new 'queen mother', was said to have been very quick to poison one of the other two brides. In the Successors' families, 'second-wife syndrome' then became rampant, as if no lessons had been learned from the Macedonian past. Ptolemy married one of Antipater's daughters, but then fell in love with one of her Macedonian attendants and married her too: this younger wife's sons became the more favoured sons in Ptolemy's priorities, causing a serious dynastic quarrel with the older children. Lysimachus repeated the same mistake and killed his eldest son by one wife after foolishly marrying another. This family chaos undermined his rule and helped to bring Seleucus against him. Ca.s.sander did no better, and Seleucus only escaped trouble by sharing his kingdom with his son in his lifetime and conceding one of his wives to him: the boy, it was said, was lovesick for her. One-eyed Antigonus was the only steady man in marriage, but his son Demetrius made up for him by his two marriages and his prodigal liaisons with star Greek courtesans. A hunting prince, he never killed a lion, but he did make love to a famous prost.i.tute called 'Lioness' (the name of a s.e.xual position, too).

In the great Athenian tragic dramas which these Macedonians must have watched, there were scenes of n.o.ble suicide in royal families split by infidelities and second marriages. In the Successors' families, what had once been myth came true. The new age of kingship threw women into prominence on an unstable royal stage: fact became even more chilling than dramatic fiction.

23.

Life in the Big Cities For a slave who has. .h.i.t a free man. If a male slave or a female slave hits a free man or a free woman, they shall be whipped with not less than 100 strokes of the lash... Blows exchanged between free persons. If a free man or a free woman hits a free man or free woman, starting an unjust attack, they shall pay 100 drachmas without a.s.sessment if they lose the suit at law. Laws in Alexandria, c c. 250 250 BC, BC, Dikaiomata Dikaiomata lines lines 196 ff 196 ff., 203 203 ff. ff.Timanthes engraved this star-like lapis lazuli This Persian semi-precious stone containing goldFor Demylus; in exchange for a tender kiss the dark-haired Nicaea of Cos re[ceived it as a lovely] gift.

Poseidippus of Pella, 5 (Austin-Bastiniani), first published from papyrus in 2001 As Alexander's conquests settled down, the three main 'Successor' kingdoms built on his example as a city-founder. His Successors in Asia, the Seleucids, settled dozens of new cities and towns, above all in Syria and Mesopotamia. In Egypt, the Ptolemies added only one city (Ptolemais) but they made his Alexandria the greatest city of the age. In Macedonia and old Greece, the Antigonids also founded yet more cities: the most intriguing is the 'City of Heaven' (Uranopolis) which was founded by Antipater's son Alexarchus, who is said to have compared himself with the sun and sent a letter in a made-up language to his brother Ca.s.sander's new city nearby.1 Like us, they must have been baffled by it. Like us, they must have been baffled by it.

Hadrian was residing in just such a great 'new city', the Seleucids' Antioch in Syria, when he heard the news of his accession. Like its founder, Seleucus, he climbed the imposing Jebel-Aqra mountain, the 'Mount Sion' of ancient paganism, which towers above it. Although he continued to favour Antioch and gave it funds for a smart new set of baths, he also visited Alexandria in Egypt and enjoyed it much more. He even honoured aspects of this city in the water-garden of his villa in Italy. Like the Successor kings, Hadrian also founded cities in the eastern provinces of his empire. One of them commemorated one of his spectacular hunts; another, 'Antinoopolis' in Egypt, commemorated his boyfriend Antinous, who had died nearby while still young.

The continuities here are very strong, for Alexander would have sympathized: he himself founded a city in memory of his dog and would surely have founded such a place for his lover, Hephaestion. Like Hadrian, Alexander and the Successors also founded military colonies in the East. Unlike the Roman colonies of Hadrian's predecessors, their colonies were not sites for retired soldiers. Instead, their colonies' land-holding families remained liable to military service. Initially they were not very numerous. The best-known such colony is Dura, on the river Euphrates, for which a maximum population of 6,000 has been proposed at its peak. Recent surveys,