Chapter XCIV (3)

Kraterus was at this time absent in Sogdiana, engaged in
finishing the suppression of the resistance (Arrian, iv. 22, 1).
To him, therefore, Alexander would naturally write.

This statement, from the pen of Alexander himself, distinctly
contradicts and refutes (as I have before observed) the
affirmation of Ptolemy and Aristobulus as given by Arrian (iv.
14, 1)—that the pages deposed against Kallisthenes.

Kallisthenes was first put to the torture and then hanged.[531] His tragical fate excited a profound sentiment of sympathy and indignation among the philosophers of antiquity.[532]

[531] Arrian, iv. 14, 5. Curtius also says—“Callisthenes quoque
tortus interiit, initi consilii in caput regis innoxius, sed
haudquaquam aulæ et assentantium accommodatus ingenio (viii. 8,
21).” Compare Plutarch, Alex. 55.

This is the statement of Ptolemy; who was himself concerned in
the transactions, and was the officer through whom the conspiracy
of the pages had been revealed. His partiality might permit him
to omit or soften what was discreditable to Alexander, but he may
be fully trusted when he records an act of cruelty. Aristobulus
and others affirmed that Kallisthenes was put in chains and
carried about in this condition for some time; after which he
died of disease and a wretched state of body. But the witnesses
here are persons whose means of information we do not know to
be so good as those of Ptolemy; besides that, the statement is
intrinsically less probable.

[532] See the language of Seneca, Nat. Quæst. vi. 23; Plutarch,
De Adulator. et Amici Discrimine, p. 65; Theophrast. ap. Ciceron.
Tusc. Disp. iii. 10.

Curtius says that this treatment of Kallisthenes was followed by
a late repentance on the part of Alexander (viii. 8, 23). On this
point there is no other evidence—nor can I think the statement
probable.

The halts of Alexander were formidable to friends and companions; his marches, to the unconquered natives whom he chose to treat as enemies. On the return of Kraterus from Sogdiana, Alexander began his march from Baktra (Balkh) southward to the mountain range Paropamisus or Caucasus (Hindoo-Koosh); leaving however at Baktra Amyntas, with a large force of 10,000 foot and 3500 horse, to keep these intractable territories in subjugation.[533] His march over the mountains occupied ten days; he then visited his newly-founded city Alexandria in the Paropamisadæ. At or near the river Kophen (Kabool river), he was joined by Taxiles, a powerful Indian prince, who brought as a present twenty-five elephants, and whose alliance was very valuable to him. He then divided his army, sending one division under Hephæstion and Perdikkas, towards the territory called Peukelaôtis (apparently that immediately north of the confluence of the Kabool river with the Indus); and conducting the remainder himself in an easterly direction, over the mountainous regions between the Hindoo-Koosh and the right bank of the Indus. Hephæstion was ordered, after subduing all enemies in his way, to prepare a bridge ready for passing the Indus by the time when Alexander should arrive. Astes, prince of Peukelaôtis, was taken and slain in the city where he had shut himself up; but the reduction of it cost Hephæstion a siege of thirty days.[534]

[533] Arrian, iv. 22, 4.

[534] Arrian, iv. 22, 8-12.

Alexander, with his own half of the army, undertook the reduction of the Aspasii, the Guræi, and the Assakeni, tribes occupying mountainous and difficult localities along the southern slopes of the Hindoo-Koosh; but neither they nor their various towns mentioned—Arigæon, Massaga, Bazira, Ora, Dyrta, etc., except perhaps the remarkable rock of Aornos,[535] near the Indus—can be more exactly identified. These tribes were generally brave, and seconded by towns of strong position as well as by a rugged country, in many parts utterly without roads.[536] But their defence was conducted with little union, no military skill, and miserable weapons; so that they were no way qualified to oppose the excellent combination and rapid movements of Alexander, together with the confident attack and very superior arms, offensive, as well as defensive, of his soldiers. All those who attempted resistance were successively attacked, overpowered and slain. Even those who did not resist, but fled to the mountains, were pursued, and either slaughtered or sold for slaves. The only way of escaping the sword was to remain, submit, and await the fiat of the invader. Such a series of uninterrupted successes, all achieved with little loss, it is rare in military history to read. The capture of the rock of Aornos was peculiarly gratifying to Alexander, because it enjoyed the legendary reputation of having been assailed in vain by Herakles—and indeed he himself had deemed it, at first sight, unassailable. After having thus subdued the upper regions (above Attock or the confluence of the Kabul river) on the right bank of the Indus, he availed himself of some forests alongside to fell timber and build boats. These boats were sent down the stream, to the point where Hephæstion and Perdikkas were preparing the bridge.[537]

[535] Respecting the rock called Aornos, a valuable and elaborate
article, entitled “Gradus ad Aornon” has been published by Major
Abbott in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. iv.
1854. This article gives much information, collected mainly by
inquiries on the spot, and accompanied by a map, about the very
little known country west of the Indus, between the Kabool river
on the south, and the Hindoo-Koosh on the north.

Major Abbott attempts to follow the march and operations of
Alexander, from Alexandria ad Caucasum to the rock of Aornos (p.
311 _seq._). He shows highly probable reason for believing that
the Aornos described by Arrian is the Mount Mahabunn, near the
right bank of the Indus (lat. 34° 20´), about sixty miles above
its confluence with the Kabool river. “The whole account of
Arrian of the rock Aornos is a faithful picture of the Mahabunn.
It was the most remarkable feature of the country. It was the
refuge of all the neighboring tribes. It was covered with forest.
It had good soil sufficient for a thousand ploughs, and pure
springs of water everywhere abounded. It was 4125 feet above the
plain, and fourteen miles in circuit. The summit was a plain
where cavalry could act. It would be difficult to offer a more
faithful description of the Mahabunn. The side on which Alexander
scaled the main summit had certainly the character of a rock. But
the whole description of Arrian indicates a table mountain” (p.
341). The Mahabunn “is a mountain table, scarped on the east by
tremendous precipices, from which descends one large spur down
upon the Indus between Sitana and Umb” (p. 340).

To this similarity in so many local features, is to be added the
remarkable coincidence of name, between the town Embolima, where
Arrian states that Alexander established his camp for the purpose
of attacking Aornos—and the modern names Umb and Balimah (between
the Mahabunn and the Indus)—“the one in the river valley, the
other on the mountain immediately above it” (p. 344). Mount
Mahabunn is the natural refuge for the people of the neighborhood
from a conqueror, and was among the places taken by Nadir Shah
(p. 338).

A strong case of identity is thus made out between this mountain
and the Aornos _described by Arrian_. But undoubtedly it does not
coincide with the Aornos _described by Curtius_, who compares
Aornos to a Meta (the conical goal of the stadium), and says that
the Indus washed its base,—that at the first assault several
Macedonian soldiers were hurled down into the river. This close
juxtaposition of the Indus has been the principal feature looked
for by travellers who have sought for Aornos; but no place has
yet been found answering the conditions required. We have here
to make our election between Arrian and Curtius. Now there is
a general presumption in Arrian’s favor, in the description of
military operations, where he makes a positive statement; but in
this case, the presumption is peculiarly strong, because Ptolemy
was in the most conspicuous and difficult command for the capture
of Aornos, and was therefore likely to be particular in the
description of a scene where he had reaped much glory.

[536] Arrian, iv. 30, 13. ἡ στρατιὰ αὐτῷ ὡδοποίει τὸ πρόσω ἰοῦσα,
ἄπορα ἄλλως ὄντα τὰ ταύτῃ χωρία, etc.

The countries here traversed by Alexander include parts of
Kafiristan, Swart, Bajore, Chitral, the neighborhood of the
Kameh and other affluents of the river Kabul before it falls
into the Indus near Attock. Most of this is Terra Incognita
even at present; especially Kafiristan, a territory inhabited
by a population said to be rude and barbarous, but which has
never been conquered—nor indeed ever visited by strangers. It is
remarkable, that among the inhabitants of Kafiristan,—as well
as among those of Badakshan, on the other or northern side of
the Hindoo-Koosh—there exist traditions respecting Alexander,
together with a sort of belief that they themselves are descended
from his soldiers. See Ritter’s Erdkunde, part vii. book iii. p.
200 _seq._; Burnes’s Travels, vol. iii. ch. 4. p. 186, 2nd ed.;
Wilson, Ariana Antiqua, p. 194 _seq._

[537] Arrian, iv. 30, 16; v. 7, 2.

Such fatiguing operations of Alexander, accomplished amidst all the hardships of winter, were followed by a halt of thirty days, to refresh the soldiers before he crossed the Indus, in the early spring of 326 B. C.[538] It is presumed, probably enough, that he crossed at or near Attock, the passage now frequented. He first marched to Taxila, where the prince Taxilus at once submitted, and reinforced the army with a strong contingent of Indian soldiers. His alliance and information was found extremely valuable. The whole neighboring territory submitted, and was placed under Philippus as satrap, with a garrison and depôt at Taxila. He experienced no resistance until he reached the river Hydaspes (Jelum), on the other side of which the Indian prince Porus stood prepared to dispute the passage; a brave man, with a formidable force, better armed than Indians generally were, and with many trained elephants; which animals the Macedonians had never yet encountered in battle. By a series of admirable military combinations, Alexander eluded the vigilance of Porus, stole the passage of the river at a point a few miles above, and completely defeated the Indian army. In spite of their elephants, which were skilfully managed, the Indians could not long withstand the shock of close combat, against such cavalry and infantry as the Macedonian. Porus, a prince of gigantic stature, mounted on an elephant, fought with the utmost gallantry, rallying his broken troops and keeping them together until the last. Having seen two of his sons slain, himself wounded and perishing with thirst, he was only preserved by the special directions of Alexander. When Porus was brought before him, Alexander was struck with admiration at his stature, beauty, and undaunted bearing.[539] Addressing him first, he asked, what Porus wished to be done for him. “That you should treat me as a king,” was the reply of Porus. Alexander, delighted with these words, behaved towards Porus with the utmost courtesy and generosity; not only ensuring to him his actual kingdom, but enlarging it by new additions. He found in Porus a faithful and efficient ally. This was the greatest day of Alexander’s life; if we take together the splendor and difficulty of the military achievement, and the generous treatment of his conquered opponent.[540]

[538] The halt of thirty days is mentioned by Diodorus, xvii. 86.
For the proof that these operations took place in winter, see the
valuable citation from Aristobulus given in Strabo (xv. p. 691).

[539] Arrian. v. 19, 1. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ὡς προσάγοντα ἐπύθετο,
προσιππεύσας πρὸ τῆς τάξεως σὺν ὀλίγοις τῶν ἑταίρων ἀπαντᾷ τῷ
Πώρῳ, καὶ ἐπιστήσας τὸν ἵππον, τό τε μέγεθος ἐθαύμαζεν ὑπὲρ πέντε
πήχεις μάλιστα ξυμβαῖνον, ~καὶ τὸ κάλλος τοῦ Πώρου~, καὶ ὅτι οὐ
δεδουλωμένος τῇ γνώμῃ ἐφαίνετο, etc.

We see here how Alexander was struck with the stature and
personal beauty of Porus, and how much these visual impressions
contributed to determine, or at least to strengthen, his
favorable sympathies towards the captive prince. This illustrates
what I have observed in the last chapter, in recounting his
treatment of the eunuch Batis after the capture of Gaza; that
the repulsive appearance of Batis greatly heightened Alexander’s
indignation. With a man of such violent impulses as Alexander,
these external impressions were of no inconsiderable moment.

[540] These operations are described in Arrian, v. 9. v. 19 (we
may remark that Ptolemy and Aristobulus, though both present,
differed on many points, v. 14); Curtius, viii. 13, 14; Diodor.
xvii. 87, 88. According to Plutarch (Alex. 60), Alexander dwelt
much upon the battle in his own letters.

There are two principal points—Jelum and Julalpoor—where high
roads from the Indus now cross the Hydaspes. Each of these
points have been assigned by different writers, as the probable
scene of the crossing of the river by Alexander. Of the two
Jelum (rather higher up the river than Julalpoor) seems the more
probable. Burnes points out that near Jelum the river is divided
into five or six channels with islands (Travels, vol. ii. ch. 2.
p. 50, 2nd ed.). Captain Abbott (in the Journal of the Asiatic
Society, Calcutta, Dec. 1848) has given an interesting memoir on
the features and course of the Hydaspes a little above Jelum,
comparing them with the particulars stated by Arrian, and showing
highly plausible reasons in support of this hypothesis—that the
crossing took place near Jelum.

Diodorus mentions a halt of thirty days, after the victory (xvii.
89), which seems not probable. Both he and Curtius allude to
numerous serpents, by which the army was annoyed between the
Akesines and the Hydraotes (Curtius, ix. 1, 11).

Alexander celebrated his victory by sacrifices to the gods, and festivities on the banks of the Hydaspes; where he also gave directions for the foundation of two cities—Nikæa, on the eastern bank; and Bukephalia, on the western, so named in commemoration of his favorite horse, who died here of age and fatigue.[541] Leaving Kraterus to lay out and erect these new establishments, as well as to keep up communication, he conducted his army onward in an easterly direction towards the river Akesines (Chenab).[542] His recent victory had spread terror around; the Glaukæ, a powerful Indian tribe, with thirty-seven towns and many populous villages, submitted, and were placed under the dominion of Porus; while embassies of submission were also received from two considerable princes—Abisares, and a second Porus, hitherto at enmity with his namesake. The passage of the great river Akesines, now full and impetuous in its current, was accomplished by boats and by inflated hides, yet not without difficulty and danger. From thence he proceeded onward in the same direction, across the Punjab—finding no enemies, but leaving detachments at suitable posts to keep up his communications and ensure his supplies—to the river Hydraotes or Ravee; which, though not less broad and full than the Akesines, was comparatively tranquil, so as to be crossed with facility.[543] Here some free Indian tribes, Kathæans and others, had the courage to resist. They first attempted to maintain themselves in Sangala by surrounding their town with a triple entrenchment of waggons. These being attacked and carried, they were driven within the walls, which they now began to despair of defending, and resolved to evacuate by night. But the project was divulged to Alexander by deserters, and frustrated by his vigilance. On the next day, he took the town by storm, putting to the sword 17,000 Indians, and taking (according to Arrian) 70,000 captives. His own loss before the town was less than 100 killed, and 1200 wounded. Two neighboring towns, in alliance with Sangala, were evacuated by their terrified inhabitants. Alexander pursued, but could not overtake them, except 500 sick or weakly persons, whom his soldiers put to death. Demolishing the town of Sangala, he added the territory to the dominion of Porus, then present, with a contingent of 5000 Indians.[544]

[541] Arrian states (v. 19, 5) that the victory over Porus
was gained in the month Munychion of the archon Hegemon at
Athens—that is, about the end of April, 326 B. C. This
date is not to be reconciled with another passage, v. 9, 6—where
he says that the summer solstice had already passed, and that all
the rivers of the Punjab were full of water, turbid and violent.

This swelling of the rivers begins about June; they do not attain
their full height until August. Moreover, the description of the
battle, as given both by Arrian and by Curtius, implies that it
took place after the rainy season had begun (Arrian, v. 9, 7; v.
12, 5. Curtius, viii. 14, 4).

Some critics have proposed to read _Metageitnion_ (July-August)
as the month, instead of _Munychion_; an alteration approved by
Mr. Clinton and received into the text by Schmieder. But if this
alteration be admitted, the name of the Athenian archon must be
altered also; for Metageitnion of the archon Hegemon would be
eight months earlier (July-August, 327 B. C.); and at
this date Alexander had not as yet crossed the Indus, as the
passage of Aristobulus (ap. Strabo. xv. p. 691) plainly shows—and
as Droysen and Mützel remark. Alexander did not cross the Indus
before the spring of 326 B. C. If, in place of the
archon Hegemon, we substitute the next following archon Chremês
(and it is remarkable that Diodorus assigns the battle to this
later archonship, xvii. 87), this would be July-August 326 B. C.;
which would be a more admissible date for the battle than the
preceding month of Munychion. At the same time, the substitution
of Metageitnion _is_ mere conjecture; and seems to leave hardly
time enough for the subsequent events. As far as an opinion can
be formed, it would seem that the battle was fought about the end
of June or beginning of July 326 B. C. after the rainy season had
commenced; towards the close of the archonship of Hegemon, and
the beginning of that of Chremes.

[542] Arrian, v. 20; Diodor. xvii. 95. Lieut. Wood (Journey to
the source of the Oxus, p. 11-39) remarks that the large rivers
of the Punjab change their course so often and so considerably,
that monuments and indications of Alexander’s march in that
territory cannot be expected to remain, especially in ground near
rivers.

[543] Arrian, v. 20.

[544] Arrian, v, 23, 24; Curtius, ix. 1, 15.

Sangala was the easternmost of all Alexander’s conquests. Presently his march brought him to the river Hyphasis (Sutledge), the last of the rivers in the Punjab—seemingly at a point below its confluence with the Beas. Beyond this river, broad and rapid, Alexander was informed that there lay a desert of eleven days’ march, extending to a still greater river called the Ganges; beyond which dwelt the Gandaridæ, the most powerful, warlike, and populous, of all the Indian tribes, distinguished for the number and training of their elephants.[545] The prospect of a difficult march, and of an enemy esteemed invincible, only instigated his ardor. He gave orders for the crossing. But here for the first time his army, officers as well as soldiers, manifested symptoms of uncontrollable weariness; murmuring aloud at these endless toils, and marches they knew not whither. They had already over-passed the limits where Dionysus and Herakles were said to have stopped: they were travelling into regions hitherto unvisited either by Greeks or by Persians, merely for the purpose of provoking and conquering new enemies. Of victories they were sated; of their plunder, abundant as it was, they had no enjoyment;[546] the hardships of a perpetual onward march, often excessively accelerated, had exhausted both men and horses; moreover, their advance from the Hydaspes had been accomplished in the wet season, under rains more violent and continued than they had ever before experienced.[547] Informed of the reigning discontent, Alexander assembled his officers and harangued them, endeavoring to revive in them that forward spirit and promptitude which he had hitherto found not inadequate to his own.[548] But he entirely failed. No one indeed dared openly to contradict him. Kœnus alone hazarded some words of timid dissuasion; the rest manifested a passive and sullen repugnance, even when he proclaimed that those who desired might return, with the shame of having deserted their king, while he would march forward with the volunteers only. After a suspense of two days, passed in solitary and silent mortification—he still apparently persisted in his determination, and offered the sacrifice usual previous to the passage of a river. The victims were inauspicious; he bowed to the will of the gods; and gave orders for return, to the unanimous and unbounded delight of his army.[549]

[545] Curtius, ix. 2, 3; Diodor. xvii. 93; Plutarch, Alex. 62.

[546] Curtius, ix. 3, 11 (speech of Kœnus). “Quoto cuique lorica
est? Quis equum habet? Jube quæri, quam multos servi ipsorum
persecuti sint, quid cuique supersit ex prædâ. Omnium victores,
omnium inopes sumus.”

[547] Aristobulus ap. Strabo. xv. p. 691-697. ὕεσθαι συνεχῶς.
Arrian, v, 29, 8; Diodor. xvii. 93. χειμῶνες ἄγριοι κατεῤῥάγησαν
ἐφ᾽ ἡμέρας ἑβδομήκοντα, καὶ βρονταὶ συνεχεῖς καὶ κεραυνοὶ
κατέσκηπτον, etc.

[548] In the speech which Arrian (v. 25, 26) puts into the mouth
of Alexander, the most curious point is, the geographical views
which he promulgates. “We have not much farther now to march (he
was standing on the western bank of the Sutledge) to the river
Ganges, and the great Eastern Sea which surrounds the whole
earth. The Hyrkanian (Caspian) Sea joins on to this great sea on
one side, the Persian Gulf on the other; after we have subdued
all those nations which lie before us eastward towards the Great
Sea, and northward towards the Hyrkanian Sea, we shall then sail
by water first to the Persian Gulf, next round Libya to the
pillars of Herakles; from thence we shall march back all through
Libya, and add it to all Asia as parts of our empire.” (I here
abridge rather than translate).

It is remarkable, that while Alexander made so prodigious an
error in narrowing the eastern limits of Asia, the Ptolemaic
geography, recognized in the time of Columbus, made an error not
less in the opposite direction, stretching it too far to the
East. It was upon the faith of this last mistake, that Columbus
projected his voyage of circumnavigation from Western Europe,
expecting to come to the eastern coast of Asia from the West,
after no great length of voyage.

[549] Arrian, v. 28, 7. The fact that Alexander, under all
this insuperable repugnance of his soldiers, still offered the
sacrifice preliminary to crossing—is curious as an illustration
of his character, and was specially attested by Ptolemy.

To mark the last extremity of his eastward progress, he erected twelve altars of extraordinary height and dimension on the western bank of the Hyphasis, offering sacrifices of thanks to the gods, with the usual festivities, and matches of agility and force. Then, having committed all the territory west of the Hyphasis to the government of Porus, he marched back, repassed the Hydraotes and Akesines, and returned to the Hydaspes near the point where he had first crossed it. The two new cities—Bukephalia and Nikæa—which he had left orders for commencing on that river, had suffered much from the rains and inundations during his forward march to the Hyphasis, and now required the aid of the army to repair the damage.[550] The heavy rains continued throughout most of his return march to the Hydaspes.[551]

[550] Arrian, v. 29, 8; Diodor. xvii. 95.

[551] Aristobulus ap. Strab. xv. p. 691—until the rising of
Arkturus. Diodorus says, 70 days (xvii. 73), which seems more
probable.

On coming back to this river, Alexander received a large reinforcement both of cavalry and infantry, sent to him from Europe, together with 25,000 new panoplies, and a considerable stock of medicines.[552] Had these reinforcements reached him on the Hyphasis, it seems not impossible that he might have prevailed on his army to accompany him in his farther advance to the Ganges and the regions beyond. He now employed himself, assisted by Porus and Taxilus, in collecting and constructing a fleet for sailing down the Hydaspes and thence down to the mouth of the Indus. By the early part of November, a fleet of nearly 2000 boats or vessels of various sizes having been prepared, he began his voyage.[553] Kraterus marched with one division of the army, along the right bank of the Hydaspes—Hephæstion on the left bank with the remainder, including 200 elephants; Nearchus had the command of the fleet in the river, on board of which was Alexander himself. He pursued his voyage slowly down the river, to the confluence of the Hydaspes with the Akesines—with the Hydraotes—and with the Hyphasis—all pouring, in one united stream, into the Indus. He sailed down the Indus to its junction with the Indian Ocean. Altogether this voyage occupied nine months,[554] from November 326 B. C. to August 325 B. C. But it was a voyage full of active military operations on both sides of the river. Alexander perpetually disembarked to attack, subdue, and slaughter all such nations near the banks as did not voluntarily submit. Among them were the Malli and Oxydrakæ, free and brave tribes, who resolved to defend their liberty, but, unfortunately for themselves, were habitually at variance, and could not now accomplish any hearty co-operation against the common invader.[555] Alexander first assailed the Malli with his usual celerity and vigor, beat them with slaughter in the field, and took several of their towns.[556] There remained only their last and strongest town, from which the defenders were already driven out and forced to retire to the citadel.[557] Thither they were pursued by the Macedonians, Alexander being among the foremost, with only a few guards near him. Impatient because the troops with their scaling-ladders did not come up more rapidly, he mounted upon a ladder that happened to be at hand, attended only by Peukestes and one or two others, with an adventurous courage even transcending what he was wont to display. Having cleared the wall by killing several of its defenders, he jumped down into the interior of the citadel, and made head for some time, nearly alone, against all within. He received however a bad wound from an arrow in the breast, and was on the point of fainting, when his soldiers burst in, rescued him, and took the place. Every person within, man, woman, and child, was slain.[558]

[552] Diodor. xvii. 95; Curtius, ix. 3, 21.

[553] The voyage was commenced a few days before the setting of
the Pleiades (Aristobulus, ap. Strab. xv. p. 692).

For the number of the ships, see Ptolemy ap. Arrian, vi. 2, 8.

On seeing crocodiles in the Indus, Alexander was at first led
to suppose that it was the same river as the Nile, and that he
had discovered the higher course of the Nile, from whence it
flowed into Egypt. This is curious, as an illustration of the
geographical knowledge of the time (Arrian, vi. 1, 3).

[554] Aristobulus ap. Strab. xv. p. 692. Aristobulus said that
the downward voyage occupied ten months; this seems longer than
the exact reality. Moreover Aristobulus said that they had no
rain during all the voyage down, through all the summer months:
Nearchus stated the contrary (Strabo, _l. c._).

[555] Curtius, ix. 4, 15; Diodor. xvii 98.

[556] Arrian, vi. 7, 8.

[557] This last stronghold of the Malli is supposed, by Mr.
Cunningham and others, to have been the modern city of Multan.
The river Ravee or Hydraotes is said to have formerly run past
the city of Multan into the Chenab or Akesines.

[558] Arrian, vi. 9, 10, 11. He notices the great discrepancy
in the various accounts given of this achievement and dangerous
wound of Alexander.

Compare Diodor. xvii. 98, 99; Curtius, ix. 4, 5; Plutarch, Alex.
63.

The wound of Alexander was so severe, that he was at first reported to be dead to the great consternation and distress of the army. However, he became soon sufficiently recovered to show himself, and to receive their ardent congratulations, in the camp established at the point of junction between the Hydraotes (Ravee) and Akesines (Chenab).[559] His voyage down the river, though delayed by the care of his wound, was soon resumed and prosecuted, with the same active operations by his land-force on both sides to subjugate all the Indian tribes and cities within accessible distance. At the junction of the river Akesines (Punjnud) with the Indus, Alexander directed the foundation of a new city, with adequate docks and conveniences for ship-building, whereby he expected to command the internal navigation.[560] Having no farther occasion now for so large a land-force, he sent a large portion of it, under Kraterus, westward (seemingly through the pass now called Bolan) into Karmania.[561] He established another military and naval post at Pattala, where the Delta of the Indus divided; and he then sailed, with a portion of his fleet, down the right arm of the river to have the first sight of the Indian Ocean. The view of ebbing and flowing tide, of which none had had experience on the scale there exhibited, occasioned to all much astonishment and alarm.[562]

[559] Arrian, xi. 13.

[560] Arrian, xi. 15, 5.

[561] Arrian, xi. 17, 6; Strabo, xv. p. 721.

[562] Arrian, xi. 18, 19; Curtius, ix. 9. He reached Pattala
towards the middle or end of July, περὶ κυνὸς ἐπιτολήν (Strabo,
xv. p. 692).

The site of Pattala has been usually looked for near the modern
Tatta. But Dr. Kennedy, in his recent ‘Narrative of the Campaign
of the Army of the Indus in Scinde and Kabool’ (ch. v. p.
104), shows some reasons for thinking that it must have been
considerably higher up the river than Tatta; somewhere near
Sehwan. “The delta commencing about 130 miles above the sea, its
northern apex would be somewhere midway between Hyderabad and
Sehwan; where local traditions still speak of ancient cities
destroyed, and of greater changes having occurred than in any
other part of the course of the Indus.”

The constant changes in the course of the Indus, however (compare
p. 73 of his work), noticed by all observers, render every
attempt at such identification conjectural—see Wood’s Journey to
the Oxus, p. 12.

The fleet was now left to be conducted by the admiral Nearchus, from the mouth of the Indus round by the Persian Gulf to that of the Tigris: a memorable nautical enterprise in Grecian antiquity. Alexander himself (about the month of August) began his march by land westward through the territories of the Arabitæ and the Oritæ, and afterwards through the deserts of Gedrosia. Pura, the principal town of the Gedrosians, was sixty days’ march from the boundary of the Oritæ.[563]

[563] Arrian, vi. 24, 2; Strabo, xv. p. 723.

Here his army, though without any formidable opposing enemy, underwent the most severe and deplorable sufferings; their march being through a sandy and trackless desert, with short supplies of food and still shorter supplies of water, under a burning sun. The loss in men, horses, and baggage-cattle from thirst, fatigue, and disease was prodigious; and it required all the unconquerable energy of Alexander to bring through even the diminished number.[564] At Pura the army obtained repose and refreshment, and was enabled to march forward into Karmania, where Kraterus joined them with his division from the Indus, and Kleander with the division which had been left at Ekbatana. Kleander, accused of heinous crimes in his late command, was put to death or imprisoned: several of his comrades were executed. To recompense the soldiers for their recent distress in Gedrosia, the king conducted them for seven days in drunken bacchanalian procession through Karmania, himself and all his friends taking part in the revelry; an imitation of the jovial festivity and triumph with which the god Dionysus had marched back from the conquest of India.[565]

[564] Arrian, vi. 25, 26; Curtius. ix. 10; Plutarch, Alex. 66.

[565] Curtius, ix. 10; Diodor. xvii. 106; Plutarch, Alex. 67.
Arrian (vi. 28) found this festal progress mentioned in some
authorities, but not in others. Neither Ptolemy nor Aristobulus
mentioned it. Accordingly Arrian refuses to believe it. There
may have been exaggerations or falsities as to the details of
the march; but as a general fact, I see no sufficient ground for
disbelieving it. A season of excessive license to the soldiers,
after their extreme suffering in Gedrosia, was by no means
unnatural to grant. Moreover, it corresponds to the general
conception of the returning march of Dionysus in antiquity,
while the imitation of that god was quite in conformity with
Alexander’s turn of sentiment.

I have already remarked, that the silence of Ptolemy and
Aristobulus is too strongly insisted on, both by Arrian and by
others, as a reason for disbelieving affirmations respecting
Alexander.

Arrian and Curtius (x. 1) differ in their statements about the
treatment of Kleander. According to Arrian, he was put to death;
according to Curtius, he was spared from death, and simply put
in prison, in consequence of the important service which he had
rendered by killing Parmenio with his own hand; while 600 of his
accomplices and agents were put to death.

During the halt in Karmania Alexander had the satisfaction of seeing his admiral Nearchus,[566] who had brought the fleet round from the mouth of the Indus to the harbor called Harmozeia (Ormuz), not far from the entrance of the Persian Gulf; a voyage of much hardship and distress, along the barren coasts of the Oritæ, the Gedrosians, and the Ichthyophagi.[567] Nearchus, highly commended and honored, was presently sent back to complete his voyage as far as the mouth of the Euphrates; while Hephæstion also was directed to conduct the larger portion of the army, with the elephants and heavy baggage, by the road near the coast from Karmania into Persis. This road, though circuitous, was the most convenient, as it was now the winter season;[568] but Alexander himself, with the lighter divisions of his army, took the more direct mountain road from Karmania to Pasargadæ and Persepolis. Visiting the tomb of Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian empire, he was incensed to find it violated and pillaged. He caused it to be carefully restored, put to death a Macedonian named Polymachus as the offender, and tortured the Magian guardians of it for the purpose of discovering accomplices, but in vain.[569] Orsines, satrap of Persis, was however accused of connivance in the deed, as well as of various acts of murder and spoliation: according to Curtius, he was not only innocent, but had manifested both good faith and devotion to Alexander;[570] in spite of which he became a victim of the hostility of the favorite eunuch Bagoas, who both poisoned the king’s mind with calumnies of his own, and suborned other accusers with false testimony. Whatever may be the truth of the story, Alexander caused Orsines to be hanged; naming as satrap Peukestes, whose favor was now high, partly as comrade and preserver of the king in his imminent danger at the citadel of the Malli,—partly from his having adopted the Persian dress, manners, and language more completely than any other Macedonian.[571]

[566] Nearchus had begun his voyage about the end of September,
or beginning of October (Arrian, Indic. 21; Strabo, xv. p. 721).

[567] Arrian, vi. 28, 7; Arrian, Indica, c. 33-37.

[568] Arrian, vi. 28, 12-29, 1.

[569] Plutarch, Alex. 69; Arrian, vi. 29, 17; Strabo, xv. p. 730.

[570] Arrian, vi. 30, 2; Curtius, x. 1, 23-38. “Hic fuit exitus
nobilissimi Persarum, nec insontis modo, sed eximiæ quoque
benignitatis in regem.” The great favor which the beautiful
eunuch Bagoas (though Arrian does not mention him) enjoyed
with Alexander, and the exalted position which he occupied,
are attested by good contemporary evidence, especially the
philosopher Dikæarchus—see Athenæ. xiii. p. 603; Dikæarch. Fragm.
19. ap. Hist. Græc. Fragm. Didot, vol. ii. p. 241. Compare the
Fragments of Eumenes and Diodotus (Ælian, V. H. iii. 23) in
Didot, Fragm. Scriptor. Hist. Alex. Magni, p. 121; Plutarch De
Adul. et Amic. Discrim. p. 65.

[571] Arrian, vi. 30; Curtius, x. 1, 22-30.

It was about February, in 324 B. C.,[572] that Alexander marched out of Persis to Susa. During this progress, at the point where he crossed the Pasitigris, he was again joined by Nearchus, who having completed his circumnavigation from the mouth of the Indus to that of the Euphrates, had sailed back with the fleet from the latter river and come up the Pasitigris.[573] It is probable that the division of Hephæstion also rejoined him at Susa, and that the whole army was there for the first time brought together, after the separation in Karmania.

[572] Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fast. Hellen. B. C. 325, also Append. p.
232) places the arrival of Alexander in Susiana, on his return
march, in the month of February B. C. 325; a year too early, in
my opinion. I have before remarked on the views of Mr. Clinton
respecting the date of Alexander’s victory over Porus on the
Hydaspes, where he alters the name of the month as it stands
in the text of Arrian (following Schmieder’s conjecture), and
supposes that battle to have occurred in August B. C. 327 instead
of April B. C. 326. Mr. Clinton antedates by one year all the
proceedings of Alexander subsequent to his quitting Baktria
for the last time in the summer of B. C. 327. Dr. Vincent’s
remark—“that the supposition of _two winters_ occurring after
Alexander’s return to Susa is not borne out by the historians”
(see Clinton. p. 232), is a perfectly just one; and Mitford has
not replied to it in a satisfactory manner. In my judgment,
there was only an interval of sixteen months (not an interval of
twenty-eight months, as Mr. Clinton supposes) between the return
of Alexander to Susa and his death at Babylon (Feb. 324 B. C. to
June 323 B. C.).

[573] Arrian, vii. 5. 9; Arrian, Indica, c. 42. The voluntary
death of Kalanus the Indian Gymnosophist must have taken place
at Susa (where Diodorus places it—xvii. 107), and not in Persis;
for Nearchus was seemingly present at the memorable scene of the
funeral pile (Arrian, vii. 3, 9)—and he was not with Alexander in
Persis.

In Susa and Susiana Alexander spent some months. For the first time since his accession to the throne, he had now no military operations in hand or in immediate prospect. No enemy was before him, until it pleased him to go in quest of a new one;—nor indeed could any new one be found, except at a prodigious distance. He had emerged from the perils of the untrodden East, and had returned into the ordinary localities and conditions of Persian rule, occupying that capital city from whence the great Achæmenid kings had been accustomed to govern the Western as well as the Eastern portions of their vast empire. To their post, and to their irritable love of servility, Alexander had succeeded; but bringing with him a restless energy such as none of them except the first founder Cyrus had manifested—and a splendid military genius, such as was unknown alike to Cyrus and to his successors.

In the new position of Alexander, his principal subjects of uneasiness were, the satraps and the Macedonian soldiers. During the long interval (more than five years) which had elapsed since he marched eastward from Hyrkania in pursuit of Bessus, the satraps had necessarily been left much to themselves. Some had imagined that he would never return; an anticipation noway unreasonable, since his own impulse towards forward march was so insatiate that he was only constrained to return by the resolute opposition of his own soldiers; moreover his dangerous wound among the Malli, and his calamitous march through Gedrôsia, had given rise to reports of his death, credited for some time even by Olympias and Kleopatra in Macedonia.[574] Under these uncertainties, some satraps stood accused of having pillaged rich temples, and committed acts of violence towards individuals. Apart from all criminality, real or alleged, several of them, also, had taken into pay bodies of mercenary troops, partly as a necessary means of authority in their respective districts, partly as a protection to themselves in the event of Alexander’s decease. Respecting the conduct of the satraps and their officers, many denunciations and complaints were sent in; to which Alexander listened readily and even eagerly, punishing the accused with indiscriminate rigor, and resenting especially the suspicion that they had calculated upon his death.[575] Among those executed, were Abulites, satrap of Susiana, with his son Oxathres; the latter was even slain by the hands of Alexander himself, with a sarissa[576]—the dispensation of punishment becoming in his hands an outburst of exasperated temper. He also despatched peremptory orders to all the satraps, enjoining them to dismiss their mercenary troops without delay.[577] This measure produced considerable effect on the condition of Greece—about which I shall speak in a subsequent chapter. Harpalus, satrap of Babylon (about whom also more, presently), having squandered large sums out of the revenues of the post upon ostentatious luxury, became terrified when Alexander was approaching Susiana, and fled to Greece with a large treasure and a small body of soldiers.[578] Serious alarm was felt among all the satraps and officers, innocent as well as guilty. That the most guilty were not those who fared worst, we may see by the case of Kleomenes in Egypt, who remained unmolested in his government, though his iniquities were no secret.[579]

[574] Plutarch, Alexand. 68.

[575] Arrian, vii. 4, 2-5; Diodor. xvii. 108; Curtius, x. 1,
7. “Cœperat esse præceps ad repræsentanda supplicia, item ad
deteriora credenda” (Curtius, x. 1, 39).

[576] Plutarch, Alex. 68.

[577] Diodor. xvii. 106-111.

[578] Among the accusations which reached Alexander against this
satrap, we are surprised to find a letter addressed to him (ἐν
τῇ πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον ἐπιστολῇ) by the Greek historian Theopompus;
who set forth with indignation the extravagant gifts and honors
heaped by Harpalus upon his two successive mistresses—Pythionikê
and Glykera; celebrated Hetæræ from Athens. These proceedings
Theopompus describes as insults to Alexander (Theopompus ap.
Athenæ. xiii. p. 586-595; Fragment. 277, 278 ed. Didot).

The satyric drama called Ἀγὴν, represented before Alexander at
a period subsequent to the flight of Harpalus, cannot have been
represented (as Athenæus states it to have been) on the banks
of _the Hydaspes_, because Harpalus did not make his escape
until he was frightened by the approach of Alexander _returning_
from India. At the Hydaspes, Alexander was still on his outward
progress; very far off, and without any idea of returning.
It appears to me that the words of Athenæus respecting this
drama—ἐδίδαξε Διονυσίων ὄντων ἐπὶ τοῦ ~Ὑδάσπου~ τοῦ ποταμοῦ
(xiii, p. 595)—involve a mistake or misreading; and that it
ought to stand ἐπὶ τοῦ ~Χοάσπου~ τοῦ ποταμοῦ. I may remark that
the words _Medus Hydaspes_ in Virgil, Georg. iv. 211, probably
involve the same confusion. The Choaspes was the river, near
Susa; and this drama was performed before Alexander at Susa
during the Dionysia of the year 324 B. C., after
Harpalus had fled. The Dionysia were in the month Elaphebolion;
now Alexander did not fight Porus on the Hydaspes until the
succeeding month Munychion at the earliest—and probably later.
And even if we suppose (which is not probable) that he reached
the Hydaspes in Elaphebolion, he would have no leisure to
celebrate dramas and a Dionysiac festival, while the army of
Porus was waiting for him on the opposite bank. Moreover it is no
way probable that, on the remote Hydaspes, he had any actors or
chorus, or means of celebrating dramas at all.

[579] Arrian, vii. 18, 2; vii. 23, 9-13.

Among the Macedonian soldiers, discontent had been perpetually growing, from the numerous proofs which they witnessed that Alexander had made his election for an Asiatic character, and abnegated his own country. Besides his habitual adoption of the Persian costume and ceremonial, he now celebrated a sort of national Asiatic marriage at Susa. He had already married the captive Roxana, in Baktria; he next took two additional wives—Statira, daughter of Darius—and Parysatis, daughter of the preceding king Ochus. He at the same time caused eighty of his principal friends and officers, some very reluctantly, to marry (according to Persian rites) wives selected from the noblest Persian families, providing dowries for all of them.[580] He made presents besides, to all those Macedonians who gave in their names as having married Persian women. Splendid festivities[581] accompanied these nuptials, with honorary rewards distributed to favorites and meritorious officers. Macedonians and Persians, the two imperial races, one in Europe, the other in Asia, were thus intended to be amalgamated. To soften the aversion of the soldiers generally towards these Asiatising marriages,[582] Alexander issued proclamation that he would himself discharge their debts, inviting all who owed money to give in their names with an intimation of the sums due. It was known that the debtors were numerous; yet few came to enter their names. The soldiers suspected the proclamation as a stratagem, intended for the purpose of detecting such as were spendthrifts, and obtaining a pretext for punishment: a remarkable evidence how little confidence or affection Alexander now inspired, and how completely the sentiment entertained towards him was that of fear mingled with admiration. He himself was much hurt at their mistrust, and openly complained of it; at the same time proclaiming that paymasters and tables should be planted openly in the camp, and that any soldier might come and ask for money enough to pay his debts, without being bound to give in his name. Assured of secrecy, they now made application in such numbers that the total distributed was prodigiously great; reaching, according to some, to 10,000 talents—according to Arrian, not less than 20,000 talents or £4,600,000 sterling.[583]

[580] Arrian, vii. 4, 6-9. By these two marriages, Alexander thus
engrafted himself upon the two lines of antecedent Persian Kings.
Ochus was of the Achæmenid family, but Darius Codomannus, father
of Statira, was not of that family; he began a new lineage. About
the overweening regal state of Alexander, outdoing even the
previous Persian kings, see Phylarchus ap. Athenæ. xii. p. 539.

[581] Chares ap. Athenæ. xii. p. 538.

[582] Arrian, vii. 6, 3. καὶ τοὺς γάμους ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῷ Περσικῷ
ποιηθέντας οὐ πρὸς θυμοῦ γενέσθαι τοῖς πολλοῖς αὐτῶν, οὐδὲ τῶν
γημάντων ἐστὶν οἷς, etc.

[583] Arrian, vii. 5; Plutarch, Alexand. 70; Curtius, x. 2, 9;
Diodor. xvii. 109.

Large as this donative was, it probably gave but partial satisfaction, since the most steady and well-conducted soldiers could have received no benefit, except in so far as they might choose to come forward with fictitious debts. A new modification moreover was in store for the soldiers generally. There arrived from the various satrapies—even from those most distant, Sogdiana, Baktria, Aria, Drangiana, Arachosia, etc.—contingents of young and fresh native troops, amounting in total to 30,000 men; all armed and drilled in the Macedonian manner. From the time when the Macedonians had refused to cross the river Hyphasis and march forward into India, Alexander saw, that for his large aggressive schemes it was necessary to disband the old soldiers, and to organize an army at once more fresh and more submissive. He accordingly despatched orders to the satraps to raise and discipline new Asiatic levies, of vigorous native youths; and the fruit of these orders was now seen.[584] Alexander reviewed the new levies, whom he called the Epigoni, with great satisfaction. He moreover incorporated many native Persians, both officers and soldiers, into the Companion-cavalry, the most honorable service in the army; making the important change of arming them with the short Macedonian thrusting-pike in place of the missile Persian javelin. They were found such apt soldiers, and the genius of Alexander for military organization was so consummate, that he saw himself soon released from his dependence on the Macedonian veterans; a change evident enough to them as well as to him.[585]

[584] Diodor. xvii. 108. It must have taken some time to get
together and discipline these young troops; Alexander must
therefore have sent the orders from India.

[585] Arrian, vii. 6.

The novelty and success of Nearchus in his exploring voyage had excited in Alexander an eager appetite for naval operations. Going on board his fleet in the Pasitigris (the Karun, the river on the east side of Susa), he sailed in person down to the Persian Gulf, surveyed the coast as far as the mouth of the Tigris, and then sailed up the latter river as far as Opis. Hephæstion meanwhile, commanding the army, marched by land in concert with this voyage, and came back to Opis, where Alexander disembarked.[586]

[586] Arrian, vii. 7.

Sufficient experiment had now been made with the Asiatic levies, to enable Alexander to dispense with many of his Macedonian veterans. Calling together the army, he intimated his intention of sending home those who were unfit for service either from age or wounds, but of allotting to them presents at departure sufficient to place them in an enviable condition, and attract fresh Macedonian substitutes. On hearing this intimation, all the long-standing discontent of the soldiers at once broke out. They felt themselves set aside as worn out and useless,—and set aside, not to make room for younger men of their own country, but in favor of those Asiatics into whose arms their king had now passed. They demanded with a loud voice that he should dismiss them all—advising him by way of taunt to make his future conquests along with his father Ammon. These manifestations so incensed Alexander, that he leaped down from the elevated platform on which he had stood to speak, rushed with a few of his guards among the crowd of soldiers, and seized or caused to be seized thirteen of those apparently most forward, ordering them immediately to be put to death. The multitude were thoroughly overawed and reduced to silence, upon which Alexander remounted the platform and addressed them in a speech of considerable length. He boasted of the great exploits of Philip, and of his own still greater: he affirmed that all the benefit of his conquests had gone to the Macedonians, and that he himself had derived from them nothing but a double share of the common labors, hardships, wounds, and perils. Reproaching them as base deserters from a king who had gained for them all these unparalleled acquisitions, he concluded by giving discharge to all—commanding them forthwith to depart.[587]

[587] Arrian, vii. 9, 10; Plutarch, Alex. 71; Curtius, x. 2;
Justin, xii. 11.

After this speech—teeming (as we read it in Arrian) with that exorbitant self-exaltation which formed the leading feature in his character—Alexander hurried away into the palace, where he remained shut up for two days without admitting any one except his immediate attendants. His guards departed along with him, leaving the discontented soldiers stupefied and motionless. Receiving no farther orders, nor any of the accustomed military indications,[588] they were left in the helpless condition of soldiers constrained to resolve for themselves, and at the same time altogether dependent upon Alexander whom they had offended. On the third day, they learnt that he had convened the Persian officers, and had invested them with the chief military commands, distributing the newly arrived Epigoni into divisions of infantry and cavalry, all with Macedonian military titles, and passing over the Macedonians themselves as if they did not exist. At this news, the soldiers were overwhelmed with shame and remorse. They rushed to the gates of the palace, threw down their arms, and supplicated with tears and groans for Alexander’s pardon. Presently he came out, and was himself moved to tears by seeing their prostrate deportment. After testifying his full reconciliation, he caused a solemn sacrifice to be celebrated, coupled with a multitudinous banquet of mixed Macedonians and Persians. The Grecian prophets, the Persian magi and all the guests present, united in prayer and libation for fusion, harmony, and community of empire, between the two nations.[589]

[588] See the description given by Tacitus (Hist. ii. 29) of
the bringing round of the Vitellian army,—which had mutinied
against the general Fabius Valens:—“Tum Alphenus Varus,
præfectus castrorum, deflagrante paulatim seditione, addit
consilium—vetitis obire vigilias centurionibus, omisso tubæ
sono, quo miles ad belli munia cietur. Igitur torpere cuncti,
circumspectare inter se attoniti, _et id ipsum, quod nemo
regeret, paventes_; silentio, patientiâ, postremo precibus et
lacrymis veniam quærebant. Ut vero deformis et fiens, et præter
spem incolumis, Valens processit, gaudium, miseratio, favor;
versi in lætitiam (ut est vulgus utroque immodicum) laudantes
gratantesque, circumdatum aquilis signisque, in tribunal ferunt.”

Compare also the narrative in Xenophon (Anab. i. 3) of the
embarrassment of the Ten Thousand Greeks at Tarsus, when they at
first refused to obey Klearchus and march against the Great King.

[589] Arrian, vii. 11.

This complete victory over his own soldiers was probably as gratifying to Alexander as any one gained during his past life; carrying as it did a consoling retribution for the memorable stoppage on the banks of the Hyphasis, which he had neither forgotten nor forgiven. He selected 10,000 of the oldest and most exhausted among the soldiers to be sent home under Kraterus, giving to each full pay until the time of arrival in Macedonia, with a donation of one talent besides. He intended that Kraterus, who was in bad health, should remain in Europe as viceroy of Macedonia, and that Antipater should come out to Asia with a reinforcement of troops.[590] Pursuant to this resolution, the 10,000 soldiers were now singled out for return, and separated from the main army. Yet it does not appear that they actually did return, during the ten months of Alexander’s remaining life.