Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:55:08.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Indian Satrapies under Alexander the Great

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

A.B. Bosworth
A.B. Bosworth*
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Alexander’s administrative arrangements in India are an obscure and somewhat neglected subject. The obscurity is due to a crucial lacuna in the narrative sources, which take us to a crisis in government but say nothing of its resolution. Late in 325 the satrap of northern India, Philip son of Machatas, was assassinated by some of his native mercenaries. In his place Alexander appointed the native prince Taxiles to govern the territory along with Eudamus (the officer commanding the satrapal army of Thracians) until such time as he sent out a new satrap from court. Nothing more is heard of a replacement or of India. The sources foreshadow an administrative change but never report the outcome. Instead we have to wait for the reports of the satrapal distributions of Babylon and Triparadeisus, in which the division of the Indian provinces is sensibly different from what it had been in Alexander’s day. The change may be due to the king himself or to his successors. Both views have been stated, but the issue has never been fully argued and it is worth reopening. It has important implications for Alexander’s view of empire in his last years and for the status of India in his imperial plans.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 17 , 1983 , pp. 37 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Arr. 6.27.2; Curt. 10.1.20–1.

2 Cf. Julien, P., Zur Verwaltung der Satrapien unter Alexander dem Grossen (Leipzig 1914), 44–50;Google ScholarBerve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (Munich 1926), 1.268–73.Google Scholar There is a good short account by Badian, E.. Greece & Rome 12 (1965), 178–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Cf. Arr. 4.22.8 (Sangaeus); Arr. 4.30.4 (Sisicottus).

4 Arr. 4.28.6. Nicanor had come fresh from his supervision of Alexandria in Caucaso, the new foundation in neighbouring Parapamisadae.

5 Arr. 5.8.3; 6.15.2 For full references see Berve (above, n. 2) 2.384–5, no. 780.

6 Arr. 5.20.7: a report from Sisicottus, ‘satrap’ of the Assaceni, that the tribesmen had killed their hyparch. The victim is not named, but he is usually identified as Nicanor, who disappears from history after 326 and is replaced by Philip son of Machatas by the time of the Indus voyage (Arr. 6.2.3). Arrian’s terminology is very loose. Sisicottus, previously attested garrison commander at Aornus (Arr. 4.30.4), is here termed satrap and we must assume that Nicanor, previously attested satrap, is the unnamed hyparch. There are parallels. Arrian often uses hyparch as a synonym of satrap (cf. Bosworth, CQ 24 [1974], 56–7) and occasionally refers to city commanders as satraps (cf. 7.6.1: ). But the exchange of titles at 5.20.7 is perverse and misleading, and the text may be garbled.

7 Arr. 5.29.2; 6.2.1.

8 So Plut. Alex. 60.15. Niese, B., Geschichte der griech. und mak. Staaten (Gotha 1893),Google Scholar 1.502, accepted the statement but found little support. It makes no difference what Porus’ official title was. To his subjects he remained their monarch and to Alexander he was a vassal.

9 Arr. 6.15.4; cf. Berve (above, n. 2) 2.310, no. 619; RE 19.219.

10 This has been generally agreed since Kallenberg, Philologus 36 (1877), 318–21. Will, E., AC 29 (1960), 376–86,Google Scholar concedes that there is a common source but modifies the theory considerably, arguing that Arrian conflated two different traditions. His argument is excessively complex and has evoked dissent: cf. Bizière, F., REG 87 (1974), 369–74;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHornblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford 1981), 51–3.Google Scholar

11 Phot. 71 b 40 ff. = Arr. Suce. F 1.36 (Roos): την μεν -napa τον Ίνδον ποταμον κα'ι Πάταλα, των έκείνη Ινδών πόλεων την με-γίστην, Πώρω τω βασιλεϊ επεχώρησε, την δε παρά τον Ύδάσπην ποταμον Ταξίλη.

12 Niese (above, n. 8) 1.505. For the rebuttal see Beloch, J., Griechische Geschichte 4 2.Google Scholar2.316, who seems to believe that Porus was never given the south Indian satrapy and airs the possibility of confusion in the common source. Julien (above, n. 2) 49–50 accepted Beloch’s general argument but suggested that Peithon had a dual command, in north-west India and in the Delta.

13 RE 19.219 (Peithon [2]). Berve’s earlier treatment (above, n. 2) had avoided the question of Alexander’s final reorganisation, and his biographies of Peithon (no. 619) and Porus (no. 683) briefly endorsed Beloch’s views, retaining Peithon in southern India until Alexander’s death. It does not seem to have been noticed that he changed his mind; the later treatment was apparently unknown to H. Schaefer when he wrote the Pauly article on Porus (RE 22.1228).

14 Tarn, W.W., Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1948), 2.310–13, briefly accepted by Badian (above, n. 2) 180 with references to Berve’s unmodified views.Google Scholar

15 Phot. 68 b 5–18 = Arr. 7.4.4–6.

16 Photius also excises the brief reference to the offices of Ptolemy and Eumenes (68 b 12); and, more importantly, he omits Arrian’s note (7.4.4) that Aristobulus was his authority for Alexander’s second marriage at Susa. The same occurs at 68 b 379, where a reference to Aristobulus is the only omission in an otherwise verbatim excerpt of Arr. 7.28.1. Any citation of sources in the History of the Successors is likely to have been automatically suppressed by Photius.

17 See now Horablower (above, n. 10) 80–7, rightly rejecting Tarn’s view that the geography is taken from a contemporary gazetteer.

18 Tarn (above, n. 14) 2.310. The passage is fully quoted somewhat earlier (2.276 n.1), where Diodorus’ ‘additions’ are printed in square brackets. Porus’ name does not appear in parenthesis.

19 Phot. 64 b 10–11 = FGrH 100 F 8: ησαν δε άρχοντες Ινδών μεν απάντων Πώροί και Ύαξιλης• άλλ' ό μεν ΥΙώρος οϊ έν μέσω ΊνδοΟ ποταμοί) καί Ύδάσπου νέμονται, Ταξ'ιλης δε των λοιπών. Πείθων δέ τις τούτοις ομόρωνή~/ε'ιτο πλην ΪΙαρ<οπ>αμισαδών.

20 The error recurs at Metz Epitome 121, whereas the Alexander Romance proper seems to have the facts right (cf. Merkelbach, R., Die Quellen des gr. Alexanderromans 249).Google Scholar

21 Justin 12.4.20: terras inter amnes Hydaspen et Indum Taxiles habebat, in colonias in Indis conditas Pithon mittitur.

21 Berve, , RE 19.219 (this is in fact a revival of Julien’s suggestion of a divided satrapy [see above, n. 12]).Google Scholar

23 Justin 13.4.15. For Nearchus’ earlier command and recall see Arr. 3.6.6; 4.7.2. The historical notes on the appointments may be ultimately derived from Hieronymus himself. Eumenes’ assignment in Cappadocia is usually reported with a brief note on the area’s history under Alexander (Diod. 18.3.3; Plut. Eum. 3.3; Curt. 10.10.3), and the résumé presumably derives from the common source, Hieronymus, who was evidently interested in Cappadocia (App. Mithr. 8.25 = FGrH 154 F 3).

24 Arr. 6.17.4, 20.2. Niese (above, n. 8) 1.504 n. 6 had already seen the connexion.

25 Hornblower (see above, n. 10) 96 has argued for the retention of the tradition, suggesting that Diodorus rearranged the appointments and became muddled doing so. This does not explain the disruption of grammar and the lone intrusive infinitive (ομοίως είναι).

26 18.3.1: Εύμένει δέ Παφλαγονίαν& καí πάσας τας συνοριζούσας ταύταις χώρας. 18.39.6: τίίς δε Ινδικής τά μεν συνορίζοντα Παροπανισάδαις Πείθωνι.

27 Goukowsky’s Budé translation reads: ‘quant à la satrapie limitrophe de ces royaumes, il l’accorda au roi Taxile.’ That is ambiguous, leaving it undecided whether or not the satrapy was part of the kingdoms.

28 Another approach, which is perhaps preferable, is to retain τούτων as a partitive genitive referring to the totality of the satrapies mentioned in the previous sentence and to add Peithon’s name at the end of the clause (συνεχώρησε <Πείβωνι>): ‘it was resolved to leave the satrapies under the same commanders (likewise that Taxiles and Porus should be masters of their own kingdoms, as Alexander himself had ordained). Of these satrapies he assigned to Peithon the one contiguous with Taxiles”.

29 FGrH 100 F 8.6 (Archon of Pella was actually satrap of Babylonia in 323). Carmania is also falsely attributed to Neoptolemus instead of Tlepolemus, perhaps through scribal error. The supposed muddle over Susiana (cf. Tarn 2.313 ff.) is a red herring: the manuscript reading is Σογδιανών and the traditional emendation to Σουσιανών is wholly unjustified (cf. CP 78 [1983], 160).

30 Strabo 15.2.5 (721) = FGrH 133 F la.

31 The preparation of the fleet for Arabia was well under way by the spring of 323 (Arr. 7.19.3–6; Strabo 16.1.11 [741]). Tarn’s view (2.394–6) that the expedition was for exploration not conquest is at total variance with the sources and has only curiosity value. Interestingly Tarn stresses Alexander’s ceding of territory to Porus as a crucial turning point, the move from conquest to exploration, and somewhat contentiously states: ‘those who wish to rule the world do not of themselves give away hard won provinces’ (2.398). ‘Of themselves’ is the vital point. Alexander’s renunciation of territories in India was an acknowledgement that he could not hold them with his present forces and present ambitions. He had certainly not given up imperial aspirations elsewhere. Reculer pour mieux sauter is the best description of his final arrangements in India.

32 There is no evidence that the embryonic foundations at the Indus mouth continued their existence (for the scanty testimonia see Tscherikower, V., Die hellenistischen Städtegründungen [Philologus Suppl. 19: Leipzig 1927], 109).Google Scholar Tarn (above, n. 14) 2.239 went so far as to dispute whether Alexander founded any cities as such in southern India.

33 Eudamus remained in India until 317, when he returned to the war in the west, taking with him the 120 elephants acquired by his assassination of Porus (Diod. 19.14.8).