The Government of Syria Under Alexander the Great

A. B. Bosworth

doi:10.1017/S0009838800030238

The Government of Syria Under Alexander the Great

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

A. B. Bosworth

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Alexander's satrapal appointments in Syria have long been a focal point of scholarly dissension, for the relevant passages in the ancient sources are uniformly inconsistent and sometimes disconcertingly corrupt. A running debate continued until 1935, when Oscar Leuze presented a monumental survey of the ancient evidence together with exhaustive refutation of the hypotheses advanced by earlier scholars. Since then the problems of Syria under Alexander have been left virtually undisturbed, which is a pity. In the first place, Leuze's treatment is not impregnable. His massive discussion tends to convince through sheer accumulation of argument rather than by the cogency of its logic, which can often be faulted.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , May 1974 , pp. 46 - 64

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800030238 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1974

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

^{page 46 note 1} Leuze, O., Die Satrapieneinteilung in Syrien and in Zweistromland von 520– (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft: Geisteswiss. Kl. xi [1935]), 413–65Google Scholar (cited Leuze). Leuze's two principal stalking horses were the discussions of Kahrstedt, U., Syrische Territorien in hellenistischer Zeit (Abh. Gött. Gesell.: Phil.-Hist. Kl. xix [1926])Google Scholar, to ff., and Otto, W., ‘Beitrage zur Seleukidengeschichte’, S.B. Munich xxxiv (1928)Google Scholar, 33 ff. See also Julien, P., Zur Verwaltung der Satrapien unter Alexander dem Grossen: Diss. Leipzig 1914 (cited Julien)Google Scholar; Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., ‘Satrap’ R.E. iiGoogle Scholar 141 ff.; Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich: 1926 (cited Berve). I also refer to the general histories of Droysen, Niese, and Beloch by the author's name alone.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} Tarn, W. W., Alexander the Great (hereafter Tarn), ii. 176–9, virtually reproduces Leuze's conclusions, though differing over the interpretation of Arrian 4. 7. 2. Apart from Tarn's brief comments the problem has remained untouched since Leuze's work.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 3} Arr. 2. 13. 7.

^{page 46 note 4} Arr. 3. 6. 8.

^{page 47 note 1} Curt. 4. 1. 4–. Like Arrian, he continues with the surrender of Straton of Aradus and the arrival at Marathus (cf. Arr. 2. 13. 7–).

^{page 47 note 2} According to Polyaenus 4. 3. 4 Parmenion was in charge of operations at Tyre during Alexander's temporary absence in the Antilibanus (cf. Arr. 2. 20. 4–; Curt. 4. 2. 24). But Curtius 4. 3. I states that Alexander left Perdiccas and Craterus in charge of the siege while he was campaigning. Polyaenus or Curtius may be wrong, but alternatively Parmenion may have returned from the interior in the course of Alexander's absence and taken over operations. In any case Curtius 4. 5. 9 implies strongly that Parmenion had rejoined the main army before the siege ended. Cf. Berve ii 302 (no. 606).

^{page 47 note 3} Arr. I. 5. 24. 3; 25. 4; 29. 3.

^{page 47 note 4} Arrian totally omits Parmenion's campaign in the interior. At 2. 11 Io he notes that Darius' baggage train fell into his hands at Damascus, and at 2. 15. 1– he gives additional details about the capture and disposal of the treasure. There is, however, no hint of any military commission south of Damascus.

^{page 47 note 5} Curt. 4. 5. 9 ‘Syriatn, quae Code appellatur, Andromacho Parmenio tradiderat, bello quod supererat interfuturus.’

^{page 47 note 6} Curt. 4. 8. 9– ‘oneravit hunc dolorem nuntius mortis Andromachi, quem praefecerat Syriac; vivum Samaritae cremaverant. ad cuius interitum vindicandum quanta maxima celeritate potuit contendit … Andromacho deinde Memnon substituit.’ See also Syncellus, p. 496. 3; Eusebius, Chronicon 2. 229 (Aucher); these minor texts ase conveniently assembled in R. Marcus's Loeb edition of Josephus (Vol. vi, Appendix C, p. 524).

^{page 47 note 7} Cf. Droysen i². 326 (ⁱ. 210); Lehmann-Haupt, R.E. A 155–8; Berve 259; 39. Droysen and Lehmann-Haupt work exclusively from Arrian. Berve accepts the historicity of Andromachus' appointment, but says nothing of a successor. Julien, p. 25, n. 2, dismisses Curtius' reports as confused, but he admits that there might be some factual basis. That was essentially the conclusion of Niese i. 88 n. 3: 'Vielleicht liegt ihr etwas Richtiges zugrunde, and ist sie nur nicht im richtigen Zusammenhangen dargestellt’.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 1} Leuze, , 413–18.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 2} supposes that Arrian was faced with two parallel narratives in his sources, one describing Parmenion's campaign in the interior and the other Alexander's activities in Phoenicia. Arrian decided to concentrate exclusively on Alexander and accordingly pruned down operations in the interior to the bare minimum, recording only the fact of subjugation and the final appointment of Menon. Leuze prudently refrained from adducing parallels, which would have proved difficult. Arrian has no hesitation in breaking his narrative for episodes like the Aegean War (2.1–; 13. 4–; 3. 2. 3–), and, if Parmenion's exploits in Syria had been described by Ptolemy or Aristobulus, there was no earthly reason to have omitted them.

^{page 48 note 3} Arr. 2. 13. 7

^{page 48 note 4} Arr. 3. 8. 6; 11. 4; 5. 25. 4.

^{page 48 note 5} Arr. 7. 9. 8.

^{page 48 note 6} Arr. Indica 43. 1.

^{page 48 note 7} Arr. 2. 25. 4

^{page 48 note 8} App. Praef. 2. 4: (from Pelusium) … Cf. Syr. 50. 251; Mithr. 106. 499; 115. 562; 118. 580; B.C. 5. 7. 31.

^{page 49 note 1} Dio 53. 12. 7; cf. 37. 15. 2 with 37. 7a (Xiphilinus).

^{page 49 note 2} For this dating, before instead of after the Jewish revolt, see Syme, R., J.R.S. lii (1962), 90.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 3} Platnauer, Cf. M., The Reign of the Emperor Septimius Severus (1918), 192; Fluss, R.E. ii. A 1984. This division may have been projected as early as Hadrian: S.H.A. Hadr. 14. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 4} Pliny's geographical survey of Syria is more complex and elaborate, but the same divisions occur. Palestine is immediately contiguous to Egypt (N.H. 5. 68), and the northern boundary is Caesarea (5. 69). Cock Syria is to the north of Phoenicia; it comprises the northern extremity of the Libanus range (5. 77), and inland it contains the cities of the extreme north of Syria, such as Cyrrhus and Bambyce near the Euphrates north of Thapsacus (5. 81).

^{page 49 note 3} Polyb. 5. 66. 6; 67. 10; 8. 17. 11 etc. At 16. 22a. 3 he describes Gaza as part of Code Syria; for Arrian the city was at the southern extremity of Palatine.

^{page 49 note 6} O.G.I.S. 230. 3; cf. Bengtson, H., Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit ii. 159 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 7} Strabo 16. 2. 4 (750) = Poseidonius, F. Gr. Hist. 87 F 65.

^{page 49 note 8} 18. 6. 3; 43. 1 (Code Syria convenient for an attack on Egypt); 19. 80. 1–; 93. 1; 20. 73. 2; 113. 1.

^{page 49 note 9} 18. 6. 3. Here in the existing text Upper Syria is said to be adjacent to Babylonia, which implies that it comprised the inland regions between Palestine and the Euphrates (similarly Eratosthenes' geographical schema has a line of longitude running through Cyrene, Egypt, Coele Syria, Upper Syria, Babylonia, and, ultimately, India: Strab. 2. 5. 38 [133 f.[). But Diodorus also describes Upper Syria as the nodal point between Cilicia and Pamphylia on the one hand, and Coele Syria and Phoenicia on the other. This is only compatible with Northern Syria between the Amanus range and the Euphrates. Reiske's emendation, is therefore generally accepted (cf. Leuze, 466–). Elsewhere Diodorus says explicitly that Upper Syria was adjacent to Cilicia: 19. 93. 1.

^{page 50 note 1} Diod. 20. 47. 5—the site of Antigonus' foundation in 307; 19. 79. 6—Poseideon (Al Mina) fell within Upper Syria.

^{page 50 note 2} Pliny N.H. 5. 66 and 74 lists Damascus as the head of Decapolis, parallel with Judaea and south Phoenicia, well to the south of Code Syria.

^{page 50 note 3} Curt. 4. 1. 5 ‘novum imperium Syri, nondum belli cladibus satis domiti, aspernabantur.’ Curtius is the only source to refer to the unrest in Syria, but it is presupposed by Josephus' apocryphal story of Alexander's relations with the Jews and Samaritans. In particular he insists that most of the populace of Syria had been firmly convinced that Alexander would be crushed by the Persian national army ( Jos. A.J. 315–). Issus apparently came as a complete surprise, and it took time for the indigenous Syrians to modify their attitude.

^{page 50 note 4} Curt. 4. 8. g.

^{page 50 note 5} For a convenient modern restatement of Schwartz's view that Cleitarchus was the common source of Curtius and Diodorus, see Pearson, L., The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (1960)Google Scholar, 217 ff. Unfortunately Cleitarchus' date of composition cannot be fixed with any degree of precision, but it seems clear from Pliny that he wrote after Theopompus and before Theophrastus (Plin. N.H. 3. 5 = F. Gr. Hist. 137 F 31). This places Cleitarchus squarely in the first generation after Alexander, a contemporary of men like Hieronymus of Cardia. For further discussion see Hamilton, J. R., Historia, X (1961)Google Scholar, 448 f.; Badian, E., P.A.C.A. viii (1965), 5–Google Scholar; fr.chachermeyr, , Alexander in Babylon and die Reichsordnung nach seinen Tode (Oesterreichische Akademie d. Wiss.; Phil.-hist. KL; S.B. cclxviii. 3 [1970[), 211–24.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 6} App. Syr. 1. 1; 5. 18; 53. 271 (the Seleucid terminology). For instances of the Roman usage see the passages cited above, p. 48, n. 8.

^{page 50 note 7} Diod. 17. 48. 5–; Curt. 4. 1. 34–; 5. 13.

^{page 51 note 1} Cf. Curt. 4. 8. 9 ‘Andromachi quem praefecerat Syriac’. For the chronology of Alexander's movements in 332/1 see Beloch iii². 2. 314 f.

^{page 51 note 2} Arr. 3. 5. 2–. Arrian lists together the appointments of Upper and Lower Egypt in pairs. Curtius 4. 8. 4 tends to give only one of each pair (omitting the native nomarchs altogether), and it looks as though his source mentioned only the settlement of Memphis and the Delta area. At an earlier stage, before the visit to the Ammonium, he mentions a trip up the Nile and the settlement of Lower Egypt (Curt. 4. 7. 5).

^{page 51 note 3} This was proposed by Wilcken, U., Gruntlztige der Papyruskunde i. 9 n. 6, and endorsed by Ehrenberg, V., Alexander und Ägypten, 48 ( = Polls und Imperium [1965], 438).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 4} Curt. 4. 8. 1 c ‘Andromacho deinde Memnona substituit.’

^{page 51 note 5} C f. Julien, 21 n. 2; Leuze, 415.

^{page 51 note 6} Cf. Berve, , ii., nos. 497–9Google Scholar. Badian, E., Hermes, xcv (1967), 579–80, goes so far as to identify the Memnon who was governor of Thrace (Berve, no. 499) with the Memnon honoured by the Athenians in late 327 (Tod, G.H.I. ii., no. 199; Berve, no. 498).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 7} A few lines later the familiar word Spartanorum is corrupted progressively to parthanorum and Parthorum (4. 8. 15). For a truly bumper crop of Curtian corruptions see 4. 5. 13–, where within four lines the manuscripts have managed to transform Miletum into militum, Hegelochus into eghilocus, and Tenedo recepta Chium into Tenedon quoque receptaculum.

^{page 52 note 1} Arr. 3. 6. 8.

^{page 52 note 2} Droysen, i¹ 326, accepted by Lehmann-Haupt, , R.E. A 156 and, with modifications, Niese, i. 77; 88.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 3} Hoffmann, O., Die Makedonen (1906), 193, suggested that is a contracted form of In addition to the Cerdimmas of Arr. 2. 13. 7 note also the Tyrimmas who is attested as the father of Agathon at 3. 12. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 4} Leuze, 416: ‘Man muss sich entweder frir Arrian oder fiir Curtius entscheiden.’

^{page 52 note 5} Curt. 4. 8. 9–; cf. Arr. 3.6. 1. There is clearly a long lacuna in Arrian's narrative. On his own admission (3. 6. 1) Alexander left Egypt , and he crossed the Euphrates in Hecatombaeon (July/August) 331. There are nearly four month for the march from Egypt to Tyre, which in Arrian is completely eventless. One might compare the similar absence of detail about the march across Anatolia from Gordium to the Cilician Gates during the summer of 333 (2. 4. 1–).

^{page 53 note 1} Arr. 3. 6. 2–; cf. Curt. 4. 8. 16 ‘his compositis Herculi Tyrio ex auro cratero … dicavit, imminensque Dareo ad Euphraten iter pronuntiari iussit. at Dareus …’.

^{page 53 note 2} Curt. 4. 9. 11 ff.

^{page 53 note 3} Diod. 03. 3. 1; Arr. Succ. F 1. 5 (Roos); Dexippus, F. Gr. Hist. 100 F 8. 2; Curt. 10. 10. 2; Just. 13. 4. 12.

^{page 53 note 4} For the chronology of Alexander's movements after Gaugamela see, most recently, Borza, E. N., C. Phil. lxxvii (1972), 236–7Google Scholar, and, in substantial agreement, Wirth, G., Historia, xx (1971), 600. It seems certain that Alexander was in Babylon between roughly 20 October and the end of November (cf. Diod. 17. 64. 4). He will have reached Susa by about 20 December 331.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 5} Arr. 3. 16. 9–.

^{page 53 note 6} Diod. 17. 64. 5; Curt. 5. 1. 43.

^{page 53 note 7} Curtius omits the domicile of the two commanders and inaccurately states Menes' satrapy to have been Cilicia alone. He adds that the two had military forces 2, 000 strong, a detail not in Diodorus.

^{page 54 note 1} There has been some debate over the precise chronological relation between Menes' mission and the progress of Agis' revolt. Badian, , Hermes, xcv (1967)Google Scholar, 187 f., has argued that the mission was Alexander's immediate response to news of the outbreak of hostilities in the Peloponnese, supposedly brought by Amyntas, son of Andromenes, whose reinforcements arrived at the same time as Menes' departure. But, even if Amyntas did bring news of the outbreak of revolt, it makes no difference to Badian's hypothesis whether that news came in November or December. The precise chronology is more important for Wirth's, G. hypothesis (Historic, xx [1971], 626 ff.) that Amyntas' troops were sent off immediately after the battle of Megalopolis. If, as Wirth does, one accepts Curtius' synchronism of Megalopolis and Gaugamela, it is physically impossible that Amyntas' 15, 000 troops were shipped off from the Peloponnese and reached Babylon in a bare two months, and the impossibility is equally blatant whether one accepts Arrian's or the vulgate account of Amyntas' arrival.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 2} Arr. 3. 16.

^{page 54 note 3} Arr. 3. 16. 9; Curt. 5. 2. 16–.

^{page 54 note 4} Arr. 1. 23. 6–. For further examples see Berve, 277–.

^{page 54 note 5} Lydia is perhaps typical. In 334 Alexander had made separate specialist appointments, Pausanias as citadel commandant and Nicias as financial superintendent. The satrap, Asander, is said to have been given command of the mercenary holding force (1. 17. 7), and he figured prominently as an army commander in the bitter fighting which continued in Caria long after Alexander's departure from the area (cf. Arr. 2. 5. 7).

^{page 55 note 1} Curt. 4. 8. 4 ‘itaque Aegypto praefecit Aeschylum Rhodium et Peucesten Macedonem.’

^{page 55 note 2} Arr. 3. 5. 3–. I disagree with the orthodox view of the role of Aeschylus and Ephippus, that they were inspectors of the mercenary establishment of Egypt (cf. Berve, i. 146; 260; Ehrenberg, Polis and Imperium, 437; Pearson, L.H.A. 61–). Arrian's wording is hardly explicit— has been taken as an objective genitive, referring back to i.e. ‘inspectors of them (the mercenaries)’. But, if one accepts this interpretation, the mercenary forces seem to have been absurdly overstaffed. Arrian has already allotted them a commander and a secretary, and the two inspectors look disquietingly supernumerary. Further, Curtius brackets Aeschylus the lirlauorros with Peucestas the general, and one would expect a more elevated post than the lowly inspectorship of the orthodox interpretation. There is another possibility. . could be partitive and refer back to In that case the appointment—and Arrian's construction'is exactly parallel to 3. 28. 4 sense, the words appearing in different positions in their respective clauses. He was obviously reluctant to repeat only two words after its last occurrence, and so he substituted to give the desired variety. Aeschylus and Ephippus, then, were from the ranks of the hetairoi', and their appointment is an anticipation of the roles of Neiloxenus and Tlepolemus in Parapamisadae and Parthia (Arr. 3. 22. 1; 28. 4). They were Macedonian ‘advisers’, placed alongside the native rulers of the eastern Iranian provinces to supervise the administration. In Egypt too Aeschylus and Ephippus were clearly intended to act as advisers to the native ‘nomarchs’, Petisis and Doloaspis, supervising the civil administration while Peucestas and Balacrus controlled the military forces.

^{page 55 note 3} Diod. 19. 58. 1 ( in Syria in 315 s.c.); O.G.I.S. 238 (Eriza in Phrygia); C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence, no. 20. 5 (the Troad); cf. Bikerman, E., Institutions des Sileucides (1938), 203.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 4} Arr. 1. 12. 8.

^{page 55 note 5} Cf. Arr. 1. 12. 10. Pausanias 1. 29. 10 calls Arsites

^{page 55 note 6} Arr. 4. 18. 3; cf. 3. 16. 4; 7. 18.; Curt. 5. 1. 44.

^{page 55 note 7} Arr. 4. 1. 5; 21. 1; 21. 9.

^{page 56 note 1} Arr. 4. 22. 7–; 5. 20. 6–; 29. 4; 6. 17. 5.

^{page 56 note 2} At 4. 30. 4 Arrian says that Sisicottus was only garrison commander at Aornos (so Curt. 8. r. 25). At 5. 20. 7 Sisicottus has become a satrap, reporting the death of a hyparch at the hands of insurgent Assaceni. This ‘hyparch’ is usually, and plausibly, identified as the Nicanor who at 4. 28. 6 is said to have been satrap of the territory west of the Indus (cf. Niese, i. 505; Berve, ii. 276, no. 556).

^{page 56 note 3} Arr. 6. 16. 3; 17. 5. Note also 7. 6. 1

^{page 56 note 4} Xen. Hell. 3. 1. 10–.

^{page 56 note 5} At Anabasis 4. 4. 4 Tiribazus is described as of Armenia. The satrap of the area in 401 is known to have been Orontes (Xen. Anab. 3. 5. 17; 4. 3. 3–). For Thucydides' usage see 8. 18. 3; 31. 2; 108. 4.

^{page 56 note 6} This is explicitly stated by Tarn, ii. 172 11. 3.

^{page 56 note 7} Arr. 3. 5. 7.

^{page 56 note 8} Cf. O.G.L.S. 677. 3; 678. 5; 702. 5 etc. In the Julio-Claudian era presidial prefects of equestrian rank are occasionally termed (Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 38.302; Strabo, 4. 6. 4 [203]). But in these cases relatively small commands are designated, and the prefects involved seem to have been subordinate to the neighbouring consular legate. The prefect of Egypt, however, was formally equivalent in rank to senatorial governors, and he seems always to have been termed cf. Strabo 17. 1. 12 (797); 17. 1. 53 (819). An isolated use of in the sense of provincia occurs in the newly discovered Greek fragment of Augustus' laudatio funebris for Agrippa (Koenen, L., Zeitschs. f. Papyrol. u. Epigraphik v [1970], 235–41Google Scholar). But the very uniqueness of this terminology caused the editor severe embarrassment, and it is clearly inadmissible to argue that was at all common in the early Empire as a Greek expression for a Roman province (cf. also Gray, E. W., Z.P.E. vi [1971], 230).Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 9} Significantly Herodotus describes Aryandes, satrap of Egypt under Darius I, as (4. 166. I).

^{page 56 note 10} Arr. 5. 6. 5; 2. 16. 3; 3. 30. 8; 5. 7. 2; 7. 13. 1 and 5.

^{page 56 note 11} See, for instance, 3. 2. 1–, where Arrian uses absolutely; this is a word and usage only paralleled in Herodotus (cf. Hdt. 7. 239. 4). A few lines later occurs , meaning ‘reflecting on this’, a wholly Herodotean expression not found elsewhere in prose (cf. Hdt. 1. 78. I; 2. 130. 1 etc.).

^{page 57 note 1} Hdt. 3. 70. 3; 126. 2; 4. 166. 1–; 7. 6. 1; 9. 113. 2.

^{page 57 note 2} Hdt. 1. 192. 2; 3. 89. 1.

^{page 57 note 3} Cf. Praef. 3; 1. 12. 4–, with my observations, C.Q. xxii (1972), 167.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 4} Fronto, ad M. Antoninum 4. 7, p. 144. 20 ff. (v.d.H.). Quintilian, 10. 1. 7, protests against excessive use of the device.

^{page 57 note 5} Diodorus 17. 21. 3 styles Mithrobuzanes It seems accepted that he was satrap; cf. Berve, ii. 257.

^{page 57 note 6} Arr. 3. 16. g.

^{page 57 note 7} Beloch, iii². 2. 337 f.

^{page 57 note 8} Leuze, 438–; cf. Tarn, ii. 176, n. 3.

^{page 57 note 9} Leuze, 436: ‘es die Angabe Menes’ war, die Verbindung von der dem inneren Asien … nächstgelegenen Küste des Mittelmeers aus mit Makedonien and Griechenland aufrechtzuerhalten.' This was also the view of Tarn, apparently conceived independently of Leuze (cf. Tarn, ii. 176–).

^{page 58 note 1} Cf. Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor, ii. 1271– (n. 44); 1419– (n. 68); 1439– (n. 27).Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 2} There is in fact a parallel from the Achaemenid period. The famous Mazaeus, satrap of Cilicia from 360 onwards and Alexander's first satrap of Babylonia, was governor of a united satrapy of Syria and Cilicia some time during the 340s. The reasons for the arrangement, and its duration, are totally obscure, but the fact of the amalgamation is proclaimed on Mazaeus' coinage and seems indubitable. Cf. Head, H.N.², 731 f.; Six, Num. Chron. (1884),

^{page 58 note 97} ff.; Stähelin, , R.E. xv. 1–; Leuze, 387; 398 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 3} Arr. 2. 12. 2.

^{page 58 note 4} Diod. 18. 22. 1.

^{page 58 note 5} Cf. Julien, 20; Berve, i. 258; ii. 100, no. 200.

^{page 58 note 6} Xen. Anab. I. 2. 19; cf. Jones, A. H. M., Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces², 126 f.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 7} Curt. 4. 5. 13; cf. 4. 1. 34–. At Triparadeisus in 321 Antigonus' satrapy was expanded to include the Lycaonians (Arr. Succ. F 1. 37), but there is no hint at what period he acquired control of the district.

^{page 58 note 8} Arr. 2. 5. 6. Schachermeyr, 170 suggests that Alexander's aim was to open up a second route over the Taurus into Anatolia. But Alexander's entire Cilician campaign took only seven days, surely too little time for any serious penetration into the Calycadnus valley.

^{page 58 note 9} Curt. 4. 5. 9.

^{page 59 note 1} Berve, ii. 367, no. 732. Berve, however, goes much too far when he identifies as this Socrates the ‘Platon Atheniensis’, who is attested by Curtius conveying mercenary troops from Cilicia to the east (Curt. 5. 7. 12; cf. Berve, ii. 429, no. 67).

^{page 59 note 2} In 331 Antipater was clearly short of troops. Amyntas' recruiting must have depleted the manpower of the home army, and, if we can believe Aeschines (3. 165), the assembly of a field army after the death of Corrhagus was a protracted business.

Antipater had no troops to spare for his king's campaigns in Asia, and it is virtually impossible that any reinforcements were sent from the Greek mainland in the interval between Amyntas' departure in 331 and the sending of the 3, 000 Illyrians who reached Drangiana at the end of 330 (Curt. 6. 6. 35).

^{page 59 note 3} For details see the useful table in Berve, i. 182.

^{page 59 note 4} Diod. 17. 64. 5 So Curt. 5. 1. 43.

^{page 60 note 1} Arr. 2. 12. 2. No other Menes is attested in the entourage of Alexander (cf. Berve, ii. no. 507).

^{page 60 note 2} The only other Bodyguards known to have been given provincial posts, Balacrus (Berve, ii. no. 200) and Peucestas (Berve, ii. no. 634), were appointed to full satrapies.

^{page 60 note 3} Arr. 3. 6. 8.

^{page 60 note 4} Arr. 4. 13. 4. The aorist participle has been taken as conclusive evidence that Asclepiodorus was no longer satrap in 327 (Leuze, 449; Berve, ii. 88, no. 167). Tarn, ii. 179, is less sanguine, and uses the passage as proof that Asclepiodorus was still satrap at the time of the Pages' Conspiracy. But, if Arrian's scruples for terminological exactitude were as nice as Tarn implies, why did he not use the present participle, which is the more natural usage and which would have removed all ambiguity?

^{page 60 note 5} Arr. 4. 7. 2.

^{page 60 note 6} Cf. Arr. 1. 17. 7 (Asander); 3. 6. 6 (Nearchus).

^{page 60 note 7} Leuze, 444–, accepted by Berve, , Klio, xxxi (1938), 138 n. 4 (Griffith, Problems, 106).Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} Curt. 7. to. 12 ‘Asander quoque ex Lycia cum pari numero peditum et D equitibus venit. totidem ex Syria Asclepiodorum sequebantur.’

^{page 61 note 2} Arr. 4. 7. 1; 4. 7. 3–.

^{page 61 note 3} On this type of corruption see, most recently, Willis, J. A., Latin Textual Criticism (Illinois, 1972), 98–9.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 4} At 3. 11. 9 Arrian mentions Simmias' temporary control of his brother Amyntas' battalion during the latter's absence levying troops in Macedonia. Amyntas is here styled son of Philippus. It is, however, certain that the Amyntas in question was the son not of Philippus but of Andromenes (cf. Arr. 3. 16. 10; 1. 14. 2; Curt. 5. 1. 40). Arrian has made a mistake with the patronymic. Now Curtius and Diodorus also describe the battalion commanders at Gaugamela, and they are listed exactly as in Arrian. There is one exception. In place of Simmias they mention an otherwise unknown Philippus, son of Balacrus (Diod. 17. 57. 3; Curt. 4. 13. 28). Presumably Arrian's sources here differed, Ptolemy mentioning the details of Simmias' temporary command and Aristobulus (?) referring instead to Philippus. Arrian accepted the Ptolemaic version, but the variant Philippus was clearly still on his mind, and it slipped into the text erroneously as Amyntas' patronymic.

^{page 61 note 5} Schmieder' emendation was accepted into the text by Abicht (1871) and cited with evident approval in Roos' apparatus.

^{page 61 note 6} Cf. Tarn, , ii. 179–80.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} Arr. 3. 6. 7.

^{page 62 note 2} Cf. Leuze, 444–; 452–. His discussion was apparently accepted by Tarn (cf. ii. 176 11. 5).

^{page 62 note 3} Kahrstedt, U., Syrische Territorien in heilenistischer Zeit (1926), 9–, had already argued that Syria was divided into two under Alexander. But his hypothesis was not rigorously argued through, and he claimed, erroneously, that the division of Syria had existed under the Achaemenids and persisted after the death of Alexander. These aberrations have had the effect of obscuring Kahrstedt' correct observation that Syria must have been divided in 332.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 4} Compare Arr. 7. 23.

^{page 62 note 5} It has been argued (e.g. by Julien, 20) that the Menon appointed satrap of Arachosia in 330 (Berve, ii. no. 515) is identical to Menon, son of Cerdimmas. If so, he could not have brought troops from Syria in 329/8. But Menon is an exceedingly common name (Berve lists four examples in the Alexander period), and there is absolutely no hint in the sources of any identity.

^{page 63 note 1} This was the accepted view before Leuze (and has been recently revived, without discussion, by Schachermeyr, 233), but there is not a scrap of evidence in the ancient sources to justify the assumption. Leuze' refutation (439–) is perfectly convincing, as is Tarn' more concise footnote (ii. 176 n. 3).

^{page 63 note 2} Diod. 17. 64. 5.

^{page 63 note 3} Curt. 5. 1.43.

^{page 63 note 4} According to Dexippus, F. Gr. Hist. 100 F 8. 3, Antigonus in 323 was given control of As all other sources confirm, Antigonus controlled the whole of Greater Phrygia. Dexippus' use of must therefore be inclusive. (I owe this reference to Mr. N. G. Ashton.) Cf. also Strabo 14. 4. 3 (668).

^{page 63 note 5} For full discussion see Badian, , J.H.S. lxxxi ( 1961), 16–. It is an impressive testimony to the silence of the sources about Syria during Alexander' later years that the satrapy is omitted from Badian' otherwise exhaustive list of areas apparently unaffected by the king' return from India.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 6} See, most recently, the thorough discussion of Schachermeyr, , Alexander in Babylon (1970), 81 ff.; esp. pp. 130–3. The one exception is Curtius, whose description of events in Babylon is still apparently derived from Cleitarchus.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 7} Diod. 18. 3. 2:

^{page 64 note 1} Diod. 18. 3. 1; Arr. Succ. F 1. 5; Dexippus, , F. Gr. Hist. 100Google Scholar F 8. 2; Curt. 10. 10. 2; Just. 13. 4. 12. Laomedon had been at court as late as 326, when he was one of the trierarchs in the Indus fleet (Arr. Ind. 18.4). If Philotas the satrap of Syria is identical with the Philotas present at the feast of Medius immediately preceding Alexander' death (Ps-Call. 3. 31. 8; cf. Merkelbach, R., Die Quellen des gr. Alexanderromans: Zetentata ix [1954], 228; 130), his appointment to Cilicia must have been one of the new departures at Babylon.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} Plut. Eum. 3. 3 ff.; Diod. 18. 16. 1– (cf. 31. 19. 3–); Just. 13. 6. 1.

^{page 64 note 3} The main assault on Isaura and Laranda was launched by Perdiccas from Cappadocia (Diod. 18. 22. 1). It would not be surprising if there was a simultaneous assault up the Calycadnus valley from Cilicia to the south.

^{page 64 note 4} The presence of Craterus in Cilicia with his 10, 000 veterans also posed a ticklish problem (Diod. 18. 4. 1; 12. 1; 16. 4: cf. Errington, R. M., J.H.S. xc [1970]Google Scholar, 55 ff., and my own observations, C.Q. xxi [1971], 130). This was a large and uncommitted force, posing a threat to the Babylon settlement. Philotas is known to have been sympathetic to Craterus (cf. Arr. Succ. F 25. 2), and one of his assignments in Cilicia may well have been to reconcile Craterus to the new dispensation.Google Scholar

Article contents

The Government of Syria Under Alexander the Great

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests