The Campaigns of Alexander (Classics) (40 page)

Anyone who belittles Alexander has no right to do so on the evidence only of what merits censure in him; he must base his criticism on a comprehensive view of his whole life and career. But let such a person, if blackguard
Alexander he must, first compare himself with the object of his abuse: himself, so mean and obscure, and, confronting him, the great King with his unparalleled worldly success, the undisputed monarch of two continents, who spread the power of his name over all the earth. Will he dare to abuse him then, when he knows his own littleness and the triviality of his own pursuits, which, even so, prove too much for his ability?

It is my belief that there was in those days no nation, no city, no single individual beyond the reach of Alexander’s name; never in all the world was there another like him, and therefore I cannot but feel that some power more than human was concerned in his birth; indications of this were, moreover, said to be provided at the time of his death by oracles; many people saw visions and had prophetic dreams;
¹¹⁸
and there is the further evidence of the extraordinary way in which he is held, as no mere man could be, in honour and remembrance. Even today, when so many years have passed, there have been oracles, all tending to his glory, delivered to the people of Macedon.

In the course of this book I have, admittedly, found fault with some of the things which Alexander did, but of the man himself I am not ashamed to express ungrudging admiration. Where I have criticized unfavourably, I have done so because I wished to tell the truth as I saw it, and to enable my readers to profit thereby. Such was the motive which led me to embark upon this History: and I, too, have had God’s help in my work.

More important than the date at which regiments were introduced is the question of their composition, particularly if, as it seems reasonable to assume, the squadrons remained at roughly their former strength. For the regiments were larger units containing two or more squadrons, and it seems impossible that the heavy Macedonian cavalry can have provided enough men to fill all the squadrons. It is not disputed that the Companions numbered 1,800 at the start of the expedition, that a draft of 300 joined Alexander at Gordium early in 333, and a further 500 soon after Gaugamela late in 331. Professor Brunt, however, deduces from Polybius (12.19.2) that 500 more Macedonian cavalry reached Alexander before the battle of Issus, and regards as probable the arrival of an additional 500 in 328/7, about the time when the hipparchies were constituted. In both cases he is mistaken. What Polybius says is that, according to Callisthenes, 800 cavalry
from Macedonia
reached Alexander before he entered Cilicia, and, as Callisthenes is calculating the maximum number of cavalry that Alexander can have had in the battle of Issus, it is clear that he did not record the arrival of any cavalry except these 800. We may safely conclude that they were the cavalry which Arrian (1.29.4) records as having joined Alexander at Gordium, 300 Macedonians, 200 Thessalians, and 150 from Elis. The remaining 150 Arrian omits to mention, perhaps because they were mercenaries. Brunt considers that Sir William Tarn has probably shown ‘that a seventh infantry battalion was formed from new Macedonian troops, which Sopolis, Epocillus and Menidas were sent from Nautaca to bring to him
(Arrian 4.18.3).’ But Arrian does not mention the arrival of any Macedonian troops after this date and the mission may have been cancelled. Moreover, Professor R. D. Milns has demonstrated
³
that the seventh infantry battalion, which Tarn considers
must
be part of ‘the army from Macedonia’ that the officers were sent to bring to Alexander, was in existence early in 330. We must conclude, then, that the total of Macedonian heavy cavalry available to Alexander at the end of 331 was 2,600 less losses, which we can only conjecture. Let us say 2,500. Surely more cavalry was required to make up the new regiments. If the ‘Scouts’ or ‘Lancers’ were Macedonians, it is reasonable to suggest, as Brunt does, that they might have been incorporated in the Companions. But, as we have seen from Arrian (4.4.6–7), they existed, unless Arrian is utterly mistaken, as a separate unit at a time when the regiments had already been formed.

But if the ‘Scouts’ were not incorporated in the regiments, what cavalry was? Much the most probable solution, it seems to me, is that put forward by G. T. Griffith who suggests that it was the Western Iranian cavalry. As he points out, it is difficult to believe that if Alexander had units of Bactrian and Sogdian cavalry by the end of 328 (4.17.3), at a time when fighting was still going on in this region, he had not called upon the excellent cavalry of Western and Central Iran. Yet it is not until 324 that we hear of this cavalry in Alexander’s army, when it is described as ‘integrated’ into the Companion cavalry. In this passage (7.6.2–5) Arrian lists the various grievances – the arrival of the 30,000 young Persians, the marriages at Susa, the ‘orientalism’ of Peucestas, Alexander’s Median dress – which later led the Macedonians to mutiny at Opis. Professor Brunt has shown that these grievances are of recent origin, and it would seem to follow that their resentment at the ‘integration’ of Eastern cavalry into the Companions and the enrolment of certain distinguished Persians into the Guard (agema) was also recent. However, immediately
before the mutiny Arrian recapitulates (more briefly) the Macedonian grievances (7.8.2.) ‘During this whole campaign’, he writes, ‘the Macedonians had been vexed by the importation of foreign cavalry into the ranks of the Companions’. ‘This whole campaign’ must refer to the Indian campaign (or, assuming rhetorical exaggeration, to the entire expedition), certainly not to the period after his return from the East. If, then, Mr Griffith is correct in distinguishing between ‘integration’ and ‘importation’ into the Companions, we see two successive stages of the policy which he pursued in general towards the Persians, a policy which finds its clearest expression in his prayer at Opis for ‘harmony and fellowship in the empire between Macedonians and Persians’. If he is not correct in making this distinction, and if the two passages in Arrian are ‘doublets’, as Professor Badian has argued,
⁴
then it seems probable that, while the final reorganization of the Companions was recent, the grievance felt by the Macedonians at the introduction of Iranians extended several years into the past. This is certainly true of their resentment of Alexander’s adoption of Oriental dress.