Chapter XCI (1)

FIRST PERIOD OF THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT — SIEGE AND CAPTURE OF THEBES.

My last preceding volume ended with the assassination of Philip of Macedon, and the accession of his son Alexander the Great, then twenty years of age.

It demonstrates the altered complexion of Grecian history, that we are now obliged to seek for marking events in the succession to the Macedonian crown, or in the ordinances of Macedonian kings. In fact, the Hellenic world has ceased to be autonomous. In Sicily, indeed, the free and constitutional march, revived by Timoleon, is still destined to continue for a few years longer; but all the Grecian cities south of Mount Olympus have descended into dependents of Macedonia. Such dependence, established as a fact by the battle of Chæroneia and by the subsequent victorious march of Philip over Peloponnesus, was acknowledged in form by the vote of the Grecian synod at Corinth. While even the Athenians had been compelled to concur in submission, Sparta alone, braving all consequences, continued inflexible in her refusal. The adherence of Thebes was not trusted to the word of the Thebans, but ensured by the Macedonian garrison established in her citadel, called the Kadmeia. Each Hellenic city, small and great,—maritime, inland, and insular—(with the single exception of Sparta), was thus enrolled as a separate unit in the list of subject-allies attached to the imperial headship of Philip.

Under these circumstances, the history of conquered Greece loses its separate course, and becomes merged in that of conquering Macedonia. Nevertheless, there are particular reasons which constrain the historian of Greece to carry on the two together for a few years longer. First, conquered Greece exercised a powerful action on her conqueror—“Græcia capta ferum victorem cepit”. The Macedonians, though speaking a language of their own, had neither language for communicating with others, nor literature, nor philosophy, except Grecian and derived from Greeks. Philip, while causing himself to be chosen chief of Hellas, was himself not only partially hellenized, but an eager candidate for Hellenic admiration. He demanded the headship under the declared pretence of satisfying the old antipathy against Persia. Next, the conquests of Alexander, though essentially Macedonian, operated indirectly as the initiatory step of a series of events, diffusing Hellenic language (with some tinge of Hellenic literature) over a large breadth of Asia,—opening that territory to the better observation, in some degree even to the superintendence, of intelligent Greeks—and thus producing consequences important in many ways to the history of mankind. Lastly, the generation of free Greeks upon whom the battle of Chæroneia fell, were not disposed to lie quiet if any opportunity occurred for shaking off their Macedonian masters. The present volume will record the unavailing efforts made for this purpose, in which Demosthenes and most of the other leaders perished.

Alexander (born in July 356 B. C.), like his father Philip, was not a Greek, but a Macedonian and Epirot, partially imbued with Grecian sentiment and intelligence. It is true that his ancestors, some centuries before, had been emigrants from Argos; but the kings of Macedonia had long lost all trace of any such peculiarity as might originally have distinguished them from their subjects. The basis of Philip’s character was Macedonian, not Greek: it was the self-will of a barbarian prince, not the _ingenium civile_, or sense of reciprocal obligation and right in society with others, which marked more or less even the most powerful members of a Grecian city, whether oligarchical or democratical. If this was true of Philip, it was still more true of Alexander, who inherited the violent temperament and headstrong will of his furious Epirotic mother Olympias.

A kinsman of Olympias, named Leonidas, and an Akarnanian named Lysimachus, are mentioned as the chief tutors to whom Alexander’s childhood was entrusted.[1] Of course the Iliad of Homer was among the first things which he learnt as a boy. Throughout most of his life, he retained a passionate interest in this poem, a copy of which, said to have been corrected by Aristotle, he carried with him in his military campaigns. We are not told, nor is it probable, that he felt any similar attachment for the less warlike Odyssey. Even as a child, he learnt to identify himself in sympathy with Achilles,—his ancestor by the mother’s side, according to the Æakid pedigree. The tutor Lysimachus won his heart by calling himself Phœnix—Alexander, Achilles—and Philip, by the name of Peleus. Of Alexander’s boyish poetical recitations, one anecdote remains, both curious and of unquestionable authenticity. He was ten years old, when the Athenian legation, including both Æschines and Demosthenes, came to Pella to treat about peace. While Philip entertained them at table, in his usual agreeable and convivial manner, the boy Alexander recited for their amusement certain passages of poetry which he had learnt—and delivered, in response with another boy, a dialogue out of one of the Grecian dramas.[2]

[1] Plutarch, Alexand. c. 5, 6.

[2] Æschines cont. Timarch. p. 167.

At the age of thirteen, Alexander was placed under the instruction of Aristotle, whom Philip expressly invited for the purpose, and whose father Nikomachus had been both friend and physician of Philip’s father Amyntas. What course of study Alexander was made to go through, we unfortunately cannot state. He enjoyed the teaching of Aristotle for at least three years, and we are told that he devoted himself to it with ardor, contracting a strong attachment to his preceptor. His powers of addressing an audience, though not so well attested as those of his father, were always found sufficient for his purpose: moreover, he retained, even in the midst of his fatiguing Asiatic campaigns, an interest in Greek literature and poetry.

At what precise moment, during the lifetime of his father, Alexander first took part in active service, we do not know. It is said that once, when quite a youth, he received some Persian envoys during the absence of his father; and that he surprised them by the maturity of his demeanor, as well as by the political bearing and pertinence of his questions.[3] Though only sixteen years of age, in 340 B. C., he was left at home as regent while Philip was engaged in the sieges of Byzantium and Perinthus. He put down a revolt of the neighboring Thracian tribe called Mædi, took one of their towns, and founded it anew under the title of Alexandria; the earliest town which bore that name, afterwards applied to so many other towns planted by him. In the march of Philip into Greece (338 B. C.), Alexander took part, commanded one of the wings at the battle of Chæroneia, and is said to have first gained the advantage on his side over the Theban sacred band.[4]

[3] Plutarch, Alex. 5.

[4] Plutarch, Alex. 9. Justin says that Alexander was the
companion of his father during part of the war in Thrace (ix. 1).

Yet notwithstanding such marks of confidence and coöperation, other incidents occurred producing bitter animosity between the father and the son. By his wife Olympias, Philip had as offspring Alexander and Kleopatra: by a Thessalian mistress named Philinna, he had a son named Aridæus (afterwards called Philip Aridæus:) he had also daughters named Kynna (or Kynanê) and Thessalonikê. Olympias, a woman of sanguinary and implacable disposition, had rendered herself so odious to him, that he repudiated her, and married a new wife named Kleopatra. I have recounted in the preceding volume[5] the indignation felt by Alexander at this proceeding, and the violent altercation which occurred during the conviviality of the marriage banquet; where Philip actually snatched his sword, threatened his son’s life, and was only prevented from executing the threat by falling down through intoxication. After this quarrel, Alexander retired from Macedonia, conducting his mother to her brother Alexander king of Epirus. A son was born to Philip by Kleopatra. Her brother or uncle Attalus acquired high favor. Her kinsmen and partisans generally were also promoted, while Ptolemy, Nearchus, and other persons attached to Alexander, were banished.[6]

[5] Vol. XI. Ch. xc. p. 513.

[6] Plutarch, Alex. 10. Arrian, iii. 6, 8.

The prospects of Alexander were thus full of uncertainty and peril, up to the very day of Philip’s assassination. The succession to the Macedonian crown, though transmitted in the same family, was by no means assured as to individual members; moreover, in the regal house of Macedonia[7] (as among the kings called Diadochi, who acquired dominion after the death of Alexander the Great), violent feuds and standing mistrust between father, sons, and brethren, were ordinary phænomena, to which the family of the Antigonids formed an honorable exception. Between Alexander and Olympias on the one side, and Kleopatra with her son and Attalus on the other, a murderous contest was sure to arise. Kleopatra was at this time in the ascendent; Olympias was violent and mischievous; and Philip was only forty-seven years of age. Hence the future threatened nothing but aggravated dissension and difficulties for Alexander. Moreover his strong will and imperious temper, eminently suitable for supreme command, disqualified him from playing a subordinate part, even to his own father. The prudence of Philip, when about to depart on his Asiatic expedition, induced him to attempt to heal these family dissensions by giving his daughter Kleopatra in marriage to her uncle Alexander of Epirus, brother of Olympias. It was during the splendid marriage festival, then celebrated at Ægæ, that he was assassinated—Olympias, Kleopatra, and Alexander, being all present, while Attalus was in Asia, commanding the Macedonian division sent forward in advance, jointly with Parmenio. Had Philip escaped this catastrophe, he would doubtless have carried on the war in Asia Minor with quite as much energy and skill as it was afterwards prosecuted by Alexander: though we may doubt whether the father would have stretched out to those ulterior undertakings which, gigantic and far-reaching as they were, fell short of the insatiable ambition of the son. But successful as Philip might have been in Asia, he would hardly have escaped gloomy family feuds; with Alexander as a mutinous son, under the instigations of Olympias,—and with Kleopatra on the other side, feeling that her own safety depended upon the removal of regal or quasi-regal competitors.

[7] See the third chapter of Plutarch’s life of Demetrius
Poliorkêtês; which presents a vivid description of the feelings
prevalent between members of regal families in those ages.
Demetrius, coming home from the chase with his hunting javelins
in his hand, goes up to his father Antigonus, salutes him, and
sits down by his side without disarming. This is extolled as an
unparalleled proof of the confidence and affection subsisting
between the father and the son. In the families of all the other
Diadochi (says Plutarch) murders of sons, mothers, and wives,
were frequent—murders of brothers were even common, assumed to be
precautions necessary for security. Οὕτως ἄρα πάντη δυσκωνοίνητον
ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ μεστὸν ἀπιστίας καὶ δυσνοίας, ὥστε ἀγάλλεσθαι τὸν
μέγιστον τῶν Ἀλεξάνδρου διαδόχων καὶ πρεσβύτατον, ὅτι μὴ φοβεῖται
τὸν υἱὸν, ἀλλὰ προσίεται τὴν λόγχην ἔχοντα τοῦ σώματος πλήσιον.
Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ μόνος, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ~ὁ οἶκος οὗτος~ ἐπὶ πλείστας
διαδοχὰς τῶν τοιούτων κακῶν ἐκαθάρευσε, μᾶλλον δὲ ~εἷς μόνος~ τῶν
ἀπ᾽ Ἀντιγόνου Φίλιππος ἀνεῖλεν υἱόν. ~Αἱ δὲ ἄλλαι σχεδὸν ἁπᾶσαι~
διαδοχαὶ πολλῶν μὲν ἔχουσι παίδων, πολλῶν δὲ μητέρων φόνους καὶ
γυναικῶν· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀδελφοὺς ἀναιρεῖν, ὥσπερ οἱ γεωμέτραι τὰ
αἰτήματα λαμβάνουσιν, οὕτω ~συνεχωρεῖτο κοινόν τι νομιζόμενον
αἴτημα καὶ βασιλικὸν~ ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας.

Compare Tacitus, Histor. v. 8, about the family feuds of the
kings of Judæa; and Xenoph. Hieron. iii. 8.

In noticing the Antigonid family as a favorable exception, we
must confine our assertion to the first century of that family.
The bloody tragedy of Perseus and Demetrius shortly preceded the
ruin of the empire.

From such formidable perils, visible in the distance, if not immediately impending, the sword of Pausanias guaranteed both Alexander and the Macedonian kingdom. But at the moment when the blow was struck, and when the Lynkestian Alexander, one of those privy to it, ran to forestall resistance and place the crown on the head of Alexander the Great[8]—no one knew what to expect from the young prince thus suddenly exalted at the age of twenty years. The sudden death of Philip in the fulness of glory and ambitious hopes, must have produced the strongest impression, first upon the festive crowd assembled,—next throughout Macedonia,—lastly, upon the foreigners whom he had reduced to dependence, from the Danube to the borders of Pæonia. All these dependencies were held only by the fear of Macedonian force. It remained to be proved whether the youthful son of Philip was capable of putting down opposition and upholding the powerful organization created by his father. Moreover Perdikkas, the elder brother and predecessor of Philip, had left a son named Amyntas, now at least twenty-four years of age, to whom many looked as the proper successor.[9]

[8] Arrian, i. 25, 2; Justin, xi. 2. See Vol. XI. p. 517.

[9] Arrian, De Rebus post Alexandrum, Fragm. ap. Photium, cod.
92. p. 220; Plutarch, De Fortunâ Alex. Magn. p. 327. πᾶσα δὲ
ὕπουλος ἦν ἡ Μακεδονία (after the death of Philip) πρὸς Ἀμύνταν
ἀποβλέπουσα καὶ τοὺς Ἀερόπου παῖδας.

But Alexander, present and proclaimed at once by his friends, showed himself both in word and deed, perfectly competent to the emergency. He mustered, caressed, and conciliated, the divisions of the Macedonian army and the chief officers. His addresses were judicious and energetic, engaging that the dignity of the kingdom should be maintained unimpaired,[10] and that even the Asiatic projects already proclaimed should be prosecuted with as much vigor as if Philip still lived.

[10] Diod. xvii. 2.

It was one of the first measures of Alexander to celebrate with magnificent solemnities the funeral of his deceased father. While the preparations for it were going on, he instituted researches to find out and punish the accomplices of Pausanias. Of these indeed, the most illustrious person mentioned to us—Olympias—was not only protected by her position from punishment, but retained great ascendency over her son to the end of his life. Three other persons are mentioned by name as accomplices—brothers and persons of good family from the district of Upper Macedonia called Lynkêstis—Alexander, Heromenes, and Arrhabæus, sons of Aëropus. The two latter were put to death, but the first of the three was spared, and even promoted to important charges, as a reward for his useful forwardness in instantly saluting Alexander king.[11] Others also, we know not how many, were executed; and Alexander seems to have imagined that there still remained some undetected.[12] The Persian king boasted in public letters,[13] with how much truth we cannot say, that he too had been among the instigators of Pausanias.

[11] Arrian, i. 25, 2; Curtius, vii. 1, 6. Alexander son
of Aëropus was son-in-law of Antipater. The case of this
Alexander—and of Olympias—afforded a certain basis to those who
said (Curtius, vi. 43) that Alexander had dealt favorably with
the accomplices of Pausanias.

[12] Plutarch, Alexand. 10-27; Diodor. xvii. 51; Justin, xi. 11.

[13] Arrian, ii. 14, 10.

Among the persons slain about this time by Alexander, we may number his first-cousin and brother-in-law Amyntas—son of Perdikkas (the elder brother of the deceased Philip): Amyntas was a boy when his father Perdikkas died. Though having a preferable claim to the succession, according to usage, he had been put aside by his uncle Philip, on the ground of his age and of the strenuous efforts required on commencing a new reign. Philip had however given in marriage to this Amyntas his daughter (by an Illyrian mother) Kynna. Nevertheless, Alexander now put him to death,[14] on accusation of conspiracy: under what precise circumstances, does not appear—but probably Amyntas (who besides being the son of Philip’s elder brother, was at least twenty-four years of age, while Alexander was only twenty) conceived himself as having a better right to the succession, and was so conceived by many others. The infant son of Kleopatra by Philip is said to have been killed by Alexander, as a rival in the succession; Kleopatra herself was afterwards put to death by Olympias during his absence, and to his regret. Attalus, also, uncle of Kleopatra and joint commander of the Macedonian army in Asia, was assassinated under the private orders of Alexander, by Hekatæus and Philotas.[15] Another Amyntas, son of Antiochus (there seems to have been several Macedonians named Amyntas) fled for safety into Asia:[16] probably others, who felt themselves to be objects of suspicion, did the like—since by the Macedonian custom, not merely a person convicted of high treason, but all his kindred along with him, were put to death.[17]

[14] Curtius, vi. 9, 17. vi. 10, 24. Arrian mentioned this
Amyntas son of Perdikkas (as well as the fact of his having been
put to death by Alexander before the Asiatic expedition), in
the lost work τὰ μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον—see Photius Cod. 92. p. 220.
But Arrian, in his account of Alexander’s expedition, _does not
mention_ the fact; which shows that his silence is not to be
assumed as a conclusive reason for discrediting allegations of
others.

Compare Polyænus, v. 60; and Plutarch, Fort. Alex. Magn. p. 327.

It was during this expedition into Thrace and Illyria, about
eight months after his accession, that Alexander promised to
give his sister Kynna in marriage to Langarus prince of the
Agrianes (Arrian, Exp. Al. M. i. 5, 7). Langarus died of sickness
soon after; so that this marriage never took place. But when
the promise was made, Kynna must have been a widow. Her husband
Amyntas must therefore have been put to death during the first
months of Alexander’s reign.

[15] See my last preceding volume, Chap. xc. p. 518; Diod. xvii.
2; Curtius, vii. 1, 6; Justin, ix. 7 xi. 2. xii. 6; Plutarch,
Alexand. 10; Pausanias, viii. 7, 5.

[16] Arrian, i. 17 10; Plutarch, Alex. 20, Curtius, iii. 28, 18.

[17] Curtius, vi. 42, 20. Compare with this custom, a passage in
the Ajax of Sophokles, v. 725.

By unequivocal manifestations of energy and address, and by despatching rivals or dangerous malcontents, Alexander thus speedily fortified his position on the throne at home. But from the foreign dependents of Macedonia—Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians—the like acknowledgment was not so easily obtained. Most of them were disposed to throw off the yoke; yet none dared to take the initiative of moving, and the suddenness of Philip’s death found them altogether unprepared for combination. By that event the Greeks were discharged from all engagement, since the vote of the confederacy had elected him personally as Imperator. They were now at liberty, in so far as there was any liberty at all in the proceeding, to elect any one else, or to abstain from reëlecting at all, and even to let the confederacy expire. Now it was only under constraint and intimidation, as was well known both in Greece and Macedonia, that they had conferred this dignity even on Philip—who had earned it by splendid exploits, and had proved himself the ablest captain and politician of the age. They were by no means inclined to transfer it to a youth like Alexander, until he had shown himself capable of bringing the like coercion to bear, and extorting the same submission. The wish to break loose from Macedonia, widely spread throughout the Grecian cities, found open expression from Demosthenes and others in the assembly at Athens. That orator (if we are to believe his rival Æschines), having received private intelligence of the assassination of Philip, through certain spies of Charidemus, before it was publicly known to others—pretended to have had it revealed to him in a dream by the gods. Appearing in the assembly with his gayest attire, he congratulated his countrymen on the death of their greatest enemy, and pronounced high encomiums on the brave tyrannicide of Pausanias, which he would probably compare to that of Harmodius and Aristogeiton.[18] He depreciated the abilities of Alexander, calling him Margites (the name of a silly character in one of the Homeric poems), and intimating that he would be too much distracted with embarrassments and ceremonial duties at home, to have leisure for a foreign march.[19] Such, according to Æschines, was the language of Demosthenes on the first news of Philip’s death. We cannot doubt that the public of Athens, as well as Demosthenes, felt great joy at an event which seemed to open to them fresh chances of freedom, and that the motion for a sacrifice of thanksgiving,[20] in spite of Phokion’s opposition, was readily adopted. But though the manifestation of sentiment at Athens was thus anti-Macedonian, exhibiting aversion to the renewal of that obedience which had been recently promised to Philip, Demosthenes did not go so far as to declare any positive hostility.[21] He tried to open communication with the Persians in Asia Minor, and also, if we may believe Diodorus, with the Macedonian commander in Asia Minor, Attalus. But neither of the two missions was successful. Attalus sent his letter to Alexander; while the Persian king,[22] probably relieved by the death of Philip from immediate fear of Macedonian power, despatched a peremptory refusal to Athens, intimating that he would furnish no more money.[23]

[18] Æschines adv. Ktesiphont. c. 29. p. 469. c. 78 p. 608;
Plutarch, Demosth. 22.

[19] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 547. c. 50.

[20] Plutarch, Phokion, 16.

[21] We gather this from Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 551. c. 52.

[22] Diodorus (xvii. 5) mentions this communication of
Demosthenes to Attalus; which, however, I cannot but think
improbable. Probably Charidemus was the organ of the
communications.

[23] This letter from Darius is distinctly alluded to, and even
a sentence cited from it, by Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 633, 634.
c. 88. We know that Darius wrote in very different language
not long afterwards, near the time when Alexander crossed into
Asia (Arrian, ii. 14, 11). The first letter must have been sent
shortly after Philip’s death, when Darius was publicly boasting
of having procured the deed, and before he had yet learnt to fear
Alexander. Compare Diodor. xvii. 7.

Not merely in Athens, but in other Grecian States also, the death of Philip excited aspirations for freedom. The Lacedæmonians, who, though unsupported, had stood out inflexibly against any obedience to him, were now on the watch for new allies; while the Arcadians, Argeians, and Eleians, manifested sentiments adverse to Macedonia. The Ambrakiots expelled the garrison placed by Philip in their city; the Ætolians passed a vote to assist in restoring those Akarnanian exiles whom he had banished.[24] On the other hand, the Thessalians manifested unshaken adherence to Macedonia. But the Macedonian garrison at Thebes, and the macedonizing Thebans who now governed that city,[25] were probably the main obstacles to any combined manifestation in favor of Hellenic autonomy.

[24] Diodor. xvii. 3.

[25] Diodorus (xvii. 3) says that the Thebans passed a vote to
expel the Macedonian garrison in the Kadmeia. But I have little
hesitation in rejecting this statement. We may be sure that
the presence of the Macedonian garrison was connected with the
predominance in the city of a party favorable to Macedonia. In
the ensuing year, when the resistance really occurred, this was
done by the anti-Macedonian party, who then got back from exile.

Apprised of these impulses prevalent throughout the Grecian world, Alexander felt the necessity of checking them by a demonstration immediate, as well as intimidating. The energy and rapidity of his proceedings speedily overawed all those who had speculated on his youth, or had adopted the epithets applied to him by Demosthenes. Having surmounted, in a shorter time than was supposed possible, the difficulties of his newly-acquired position at home, he marched into Greece at the head of a formidable army, seemingly about two months after the death of Philip. He was favorably received by the Thessalians, who passed a vote constituting Alexander head of Greece in place of his father Philip; which vote was speedily confirmed by the Amphiktyonic assembly, convoked at Thermopylæ. Alexander next advanced to Thebes, and from thence over the isthmus of Corinth into Peloponnesus. The details of his march we do not know; but his great force, probably not inferior to that which had conquered at Chæroneia, spread terror everywhere, silencing all except his partisans. Nowhere was the alarm greater than at Athens. The Athenians recollecting both the speeches of their orators and the votes of their assembly,—offensive at least, if not hostile, to the Macedonians—trembled lest the march of Alexander should be directed against their city, and accordingly made preparation for standing a siege. All citizens were enjoined to bring in their families and properties from the country, insomuch that the space within the walls was full both of fugitives and of cattle.[26] At the same time, the assembly adopted, on the motion of Demades, a resolution of apology and full submission to Alexander: they not only recognized him as chief of Greece, but conferred upon him divine honors, in terms even more emphatic than those bestowed on Philip.[27] The mover, with other legates, carried the resolution to Alexander, whom they found at Thebes, and who accepted their submission. A young speaker named Pytheas is said to have opposed the vote in the Athenian assembly.[28] Whether Demosthenes did the like—or whether, under the feeling of disappointed anticipations and overwhelming Macedonian force, he condemned himself to silence,—we cannot say. That he did not go with Demades on the mission to Alexander, seems a matter of course, though he is said to have been appointed by public vote to do so, and to have declined the duty. He accompanied the legation as far as Mount Kithæron, on the frontier, and then returned to Athens.[29] We read with astonishment that Æschines and his other enemies denounced this step as a cowardly desertion. No envoy could be so odious to Alexander, or so likely to provoke refusal for the proposition which he carried, as Demosthenes. To employ him in such a mission would have been absurd; except for the purpose probably intended by his enemies, that he might be either detained by the conqueror as an expiatory victim,[30] or sent back as a pardoned and humiliated prisoner.

[26] Demadis Fragment. ὑπὲρ τῆς δωδεκαετίας, p. 180.

[27] Arrian, i. 1, 4.

[28] Plutarch, Reipub. Ger. Præcept. p. 804.

[29] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 564. c. 50; Deinarchus cont.
Demosth. p. 57; Diodor. xvii. 4; Plutarch, Demosth. c. 23
(Plutarch confounds the proceedings of this year with those of
the succeeding year). Demades, in the fragment of his oration
remaining to us, makes no allusion to this proceeding of
Demosthenes.

The decree, naming Demosthenes among the envoys, is likely enough
to have been passed chiefly by the votes of his enemies. It was
always open to an Athenian citizen to accept or decline such an
appointment.

[30] Several years afterwards, Demades himself was put to death
by Antipater, to whom he had been sent as envoy from Athens
(Diodor. xviii. 48).

After displaying his force in various portions of Peloponnesus, Alexander returned to Corinth, where he convened deputies from the Grecian cities generally. The list of those cities which obeyed the summons is not before us, but probably it included nearly all the cities of Central Greece. We know only that the Lacedæmonians continued to stand aloof, refusing all concurrence. Alexander asked from the assembled deputies the same appointment which the victorious Philip had required and obtained two years before—the hegemony or headship of the Greeks collectively for the purpose of prosecuting war against Persia.[31] To the request of a prince at the head of an irresistible army, one answer only was admissible. He was nominated Imperator with full powers, by land and sea. Overawed by the presence and sentiment of Macedonian force, all acquiesced in this vote except the Lacedæmonians.

[31] Arrian, i. 1, 2. αἰτεῖν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν τῆς ἐπὶ
τοὺς Πέρσας στρατείας, ἥντινα Φιλίππῳ ἤδη ἔδοσαν· καὶ αἰτήσαντα
λαβεῖν παρὰ πάντων, πλὴν Λακεδαιμονίων, etc.

Arrian speaks as if this request had been addressed only to the
Greeks _within_ Peloponnesus; moreover he mentions no assembly
at Corinth, which is noticed (though with some confusion) by
Diodorus, Justin, and Plutarch. Cities out of Peloponnesus,
as well as within it, must have been included; unless we
suppose that the resolution of the Amphiktyonic assembly, which
had been previously passed, was held to comprehend all the
extra-Peloponnesian cities, which seems not probable.

The convention sanctioned by Alexander was probably the same as that settled by and with his father Philip. Its grand and significant feature was, that it recognized Hellas as a confederacy under the Macedonian prince as imperator, president, or executive head and arm. It crowned him with a legal sanction as keeper of the peace within Greece, and conqueror abroad in the name of Greece. Of its other conditions, some are made known to us by subsequent complaints; such conditions as, being equitable and tutelary towards the members generally, the Macedonian chief found it inconvenient to observe, and speedily began to violate. Each Hellenic city was pronounced, by the first article of the convention, to be free and autonomous. In each, the existing political constitution was recognized as it stood; all other cities were forbidden to interfere with it, or to second any attack by its hostile exiles.[32] No new despot was to be established; no dispossessed despot was to be restored.[33] Each city became bound to discourage in every other, as far as possible, all illegal violence—such as political executions, confiscation, spoliation, redivision of land or abolition of debts, factious manumission of slaves, etc.[34] To each was guaranteed freedom of navigation; maritime capture was prohibited, on pain of enmity from all.[35] Each was forbidden to send armed vessels into the harbor of any other, or to build vessels or engage seamen there.[36] By each, an oath was taken to observe these conditions, to declare war against all who violated them, and to keep them inscribed on a commemorative column. Provision seems to have been made for admitting any additional city[37] on its subsequent application, though it might not have been a party to the original contract. Moreover, it appears that a standing military force, under Macedonian orders, was provided to enforce observance of the convention; and that the synod of deputies was contemplated as likely to meet periodically.[38]

[32] Demosthenes (or Pseudo-Demosthenes), Orat. xvii. De
Fœdere Alexandrino, p. 213, 214. ἐπιτάττει ἡ συνθήκη εὐθὺς ἐν
ἀρχῇ, ἐλευθέρους εἶναι καὶ αὐτονόμους τοὺς Ἕλληνας.—Ἐστὶ γὰρ
γεγραμμένον, ἐάν τινες τὰς πολιτείας τὰς παρ᾽ ἑκάστοις οὔσας, ὅτε
τοὺς ὅρκους τοὺς περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης ὤμνυσαν, καταλύσωσι, πολεμίους
εἶναι πᾶσι τοῖς τῆς εἰρήνης μετέχουσιν....

[33] Demosthen. Orat. de Fœdere Alex. p. 213.

[34] Demosth. ib. p 215.

[35] Demosth. ib. p. 217. ἔστι γὰρ δήπου ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις, τὴν
θάλατταν πλεῖν τοὺς μετέχοντας τῆς εἰρήνης, καὶ μηδένα κωλύειν
αὐτοὺς μηδὲ κατάγειν πλοῖον μηδενὸς τούτων· ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτα
ποιῇ, πολέμιον εἶναι πᾶσι τοῖς τῆς εἰρήνης μετέχουσιν....

[36] Demosth. ib. p. 218, 219. Böhnecke, in his instructive
comments on this convention (Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der
Attischen Redner, p. 623), has treated the prohibition here
mentioned as if it were one specially binding the Macedonians
not to sail with armed ships into the Peiræus. This undoubtedly
is the particular case on which the orator insists; but I
conceive it to have been only a particular case under a general
prohibitory rule.

[37] Arrian, ii. 1, 7; ii. 2, 4. Demosth. de Fœd. Alex, p. 213.
Tenedos, Mitylênê, Antissa, and Eresus, can hardly have been
members of the convention when first sworn.

[38] Demosth. Orat. de Fœd. Alex. p. 215. ἐστὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς
συνθήκαις ἐπιμελεῖσθαι ~τοὺς συνεδρεύοντας καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τῇ
κοινῇ φυλακῇ τεταγμένους~, ὅπως ἐν ταῖς κοινωνούσαις πόλεσι μὴ
γίγνωνται θάνατοι μηδὲ φυγαὶ παρὰ τοὺς κειμένους ταῖς πόλεσι
νόμους.... Οἱ δὲ τοσοῦτον δέουσι τούτων τι κωλύειν, ὥστε καὶ
συγκατασκευάζουσιν, etc. (p. 216).

The persons designated by οἱ δὲ, and denounced throughout this
oration generally, are, Alexander or the Macedonian officers and
soldiers.

A passage in Deinarchus cont. Demosth. p. 14, leads to the
supposition, that a standing Macedonian force was kept at
Corinth, occupying the Isthmus. The Thebans, however, declared
against Macedonia (in August or September 335 B. C.),
and proceeding to besiege the Macedonian garrison in the Kadmeia,
sent envoys to entreat aid from the Arcadians. “These envoys
(says Deinarchus) got with difficulty by sea to the Arcadians”—οἳ
κατὰ θάλασσαν ~μόλις~ ἀφίκοντο πρὸς ἐκείνους. Whence should this
difficulty arise, except from a Macedonian occupation of Corinth?

Such was the convention, in so far as we know its terms, agreed to by the Grecian deputies at Corinth with Alexander; but with Alexander at the head of an irresistible army. He proclaimed it as the “public statute of the Greeks”,[39] constituting a paramount obligation, of which he was the enforcer, binding on all, and authorizing him to treat all transgressors as rebels. It was set forth as counterpart of, and substitute for, the convention of Antalkidas, which we shall presently see the officers of Darius trying to revive against him—the headship of Persia against that of Macedonia. Such is the melancholy degradation of the Grecian World, that its cities have no alternative except to choose between these two foreign potentates—or to invite the help of Darius, the most distant and least dangerous, whose headship could hardly be more than nominal, against a neighbor sure to be domineering and compressive, and likely enough to be tyrannical. Of the once powerful Hellenic chiefs and competitors—Sparta, Athens, Thebes—under each of whom the Grecian world had been upheld as an independent and self-determining aggregate, admitting the free play of native sentiment and character, under circumstances more or less advantageous—the two last are now confounded as common units (one even held under garrison) among the subject allies of Alexander; while Sparta preserves only the dignity of an isolated independence.

[39] Arrian, i. 16, 10. παρὰ τὰ κοινῇ δόξαντα τοῖς Ἕλλησιν.
After the death of Darius, Alexander pronounced that the Grecian
mercenaries who had been serving with that prince, were highly
criminal for having contravened the general vote of the Greeks
(παρὰ τὰ δόγματα τὰ Ἑλλήνων), except such as had taken service
before that vote was passed, and except the Sinopeans, whom
Alexander considered as subjects of Persia and not partakers τοῦ
κοινοῦ τῶν Ἑλλήνων (Arrian, iii. 23, 15; iii. 24, 8, 9).

It appears that during the nine months which succeeded the swearing of the convention, Alexander and his officers (after his return to Macedonia) were active, both by armed force and by mission of envoys, in procuring new adhesions and in re-modelling the governments of various cities suitably to their own views. Complaints of such aggressions were raised in the public assembly of Athens, the only place in Greece where any liberty of discussion still survived. An oration, pronounced by Demosthenes, Hyperides, or one of the contemporary, anti-Macedonian politicians (about the spring or early summer of 335 B. C.),[40] imparts to us some idea both of the Macedonian interventions steadily going on, and of the unavailing remonstrances raised against them by individual Athenian citizens. At the time of this oration, such remonstrances had already been often repeated. They were always met by the macedonizing Athenians with peremptory declarations that the convention must be observed. But in reply, the remonstrants urged, that it was unfair to call upon Athens for strict observance of the convention, while the Macedonians and their partisans in the various cities were perpetually violating it for their own profit. Alexander and his officers (affirms this orator) had never once laid down their arms since the convention was settled. They had been perpetually tampering with the governments of the various cities, to promote their own partisans to power.[41] In Messênê, Sikyon, and Pellênê, they had subverted the popular constitutions, banished many citizens, and established friends of their own as despots. The Macedonian force, destined as a public guarantee to enforce the observance of the convention, had been employed only to overrule its best conditions, and to arm the hands of factious partisans.[42] Thus Alexander in his capacity of Imperator, disregarding all the restraints of the convention, acted as chief despot for the maintenance of subordinate despots in the separate cities.[43] Even at Athens, this imperial authority had rescinded sentences of the dikastery, and compelled the adoption of measures contrary to the laws and constitution.[44]

[40] This is the oration περὶ τῶν πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον συνθηκῶν
already more than once alluded to above. Though standing among
the Demosthenic works, it is supposed by Libanius as well as by
most modern critics not to be the production of Demosthenes—upon
internal grounds of style, which are certainly forcible. Libanius
says that it bears much resemblance to the style of Hyperides.
At any rate, there seems no reason to doubt that it is a genuine
oration of one of the contemporary orators. I agree with
Böhnecke (Forschungen, p. 629) in thinking that it must have
been delivered a few months after the convention with Alexander,
before the taking of Thebes.

[41] Demosthenes (or Pseudo-Demosth.), Orat. De Fœdere Alex. p.
216. Οὕτω μὲν τοίνυν ῥᾳδίως τὰ ὅπλα ἐπήνεγκε ὁ Μακεδὼν, ὥστε οὐδὲ
κατέθετο πώποτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι καὶ νῦν περιέρχεται καθ᾽ ὅσον δύναται,
etc.

[42] Demosth. ib. p. 214, 215.

[43] Demosth. (or Pseudo-Demosth.) Orat. De Fœdere Alex. p.
212, 214, 215, 220, where the orator speaks of Alexander as the
τύραννος of Greece.

The orator argues (p. 213) that the Macedonians had recognized
despotism as contrary to the convention, in so far as to expel
the despots from the towns of Antissa and Eresus in Lesbos. But
probably these despots were in correspondence with the Persians
on the opposite mainland, or with Memnon.

[44] Demosth. ib. p. 215. τοὺς δ᾽ ἰδίους ὑμᾶς νόμους ἀναγκάζουσι
λύειν, τοὺς μὲν κεκριμένους ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις ἀφιέντες, ἕτερα
δὲ παμπλήθη τοιαῦτα βιαζόμενοι παρανομεῖν....

At sea, the wrongful aggressions of Alexander or his officers had been not less manifest than on land. The convention, guaranteeing to all cities the right of free navigation, distinctly forbade each to take or detain vessels belonging to any other. Nevertheless the Macedonians had seized, in the Hellespont, all the merchantmen coming out with cargoes from the Euxine, and carried them into Tenedos, where they were detained, under various fraudulent pretences, in spite of remonstrances from the proprietors and cities whose supply of corn was thus intercepted. Among these sufferers, Athens stood conspicuous; since consumers of imported corn, ship-owners, and merchants, were more numerous there than elsewhere. The Athenians, addressing complaints and remonstrances without effect, became at length so incensed, and perhaps uneasy about their provisions, that they passed a decree to equip and despatch 100 triremes, appointing Menestheus (son of Iphikrates) admiral. By this strenuous manifestation, the Macedonians were induced to release the detained vessels. Had the detention been prolonged, the Athenian fleet would have sailed to extort redress by force; so that, as Athens was more than a match for Macedon on sea, the maritime empire of the latter would have been overthrown, while even on land much encouragement would have been given to malcontents against it.[45] Another incident had occurred, less grave than this, yet still dwelt upon by the orator as an infringement of the convention, and as an insult to Athenians. Though an express article of the convention prohibited armed ships of one city from entering the harbor of another, still a Macedonian trireme had been sent into Pieræus to ask permission that smaller vessels might be built there for Macedonian account. This was offensive to a large proportion of Athenians, not only as violating the convention, but as a manifest step towards employing the nautical equipments and seamen of Athens for the augmentation of the Macedonian navy.[46]

[45] Demosth. (or Pseudo-Demosth.) Orat. De Fœdere Alex. p. 217.
εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπεροψίας ἦλθον, ὥστε εἰς Τένεδον ἅπαντα τὰ ἐκ τοῦ
Πόντου πλοῖα κατήγαγον, καὶ σκευωρούμενοι περὶ αὐτὰ οὐ πρότερον
ἀφεῖσαν, πρὶν ὑμεῖς ἐψηφίσασθε τριήρεις ἕκατον πληροῦν καὶ
καθέλκειν εὐθὺς τότε—ὃ παρ᾽ ἐλάχιστον ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς ἀφαιρεθῆναι
δικαίως τὴν κατὰ θάλασσαν ἡγεμονίαν.... p. 218. Ἕως γὰρ ἂν ἐξῇ
τῶν κατὰ θάλασσαν καὶ μόνοις ἀναμφισβητήτως εἶναι κυρίοις (the
Athenians), τοῖς γε κατὰ γῆν πρὸς τῇ ὑπαρχούσῃ δυνάμει ἐστὶ
προβολὰς ἑτέρας ἰσχυροτέρας εὑρέσθαι, etc.

We know that Alexander caused a squadron of ships to sail round
to and up the Danube from Byzantium (Arrian, i. 3, 3), to meet
him after his march by land from the southern coast of Thrace.
It is not improbable that the Athenian vessels detained may have
come loaded with a supply of corn, and that the detention of the
corn-ships may have been intended to facilitate this operation.

[46] Demosth. (or Pseudo-Demosth.) Orat. De Fœdere Alex. p. 219.

“Let those speakers who are perpetually admonishing us to observe the convention (the orator contends), prevail on the imperial chief to set the example of observing it on his part. I too impress upon you the like observance. To a democracy nothing is more essential than scrupulous regard to equity and justice.[47] But the convention itself enjoins all its members to make war against transgressors; and pursuant to this article, you ought to make war against Macedon.[48] Be assured that all Greeks will see that the war is neither directed against them nor brought on by your fault.[49] At this juncture, such a step for the maintenance of your own freedom as well as Hellenic freedom generally, will be not less opportune and advantageous than it is just.[50] The time is come for shaking off your disgraceful submission to others, and your oblivion of our own past dignity.[51] If you encourage me, I am prepared to make a formal motion—To declare war against the violators of the convention, as the convention itself directs.”[52]

[47] Demosth. ib. p. 211. οἶμαι γὰρ οὐδὲν οὕτω τοῖς
δημοκρατουμένοις πρέπειν, ὡς περὶ τὸ ἴσον καὶ τὸ δίκαιον
σπουδάζειν.

I give here the main sense, without binding myself to the exact
phrases.

[48] Demosth. ib. p. 213. καὶ γὰρ ἔτι προσγέγραπται ἐν ταῖς
συνθήκαις, πολέμιον εἶναι, τὸν ἐκεῖνα ἅπερ Ἀλέξανδρος ποιοῦντα,
ἁπᾶσι τοῖς τῆς εἰρήνης κοινωνοῦσι, καὶ τὴν χώραν αὐτοῦ, καὶ
στρατεύεσθαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἅπαντας. Compare p. 214 init.

[49] Demosth. ib. p. 217. οὐδεὶς ὑμῖν ἐγκαλέσει ποτε τῶν Ἑλλήνων
ὡς ἄρα παρέβητέ τι τῶν κοινῇ ὁμολογηθέντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ χάριν
ἕξουσιν ὅτι μόνοι ἐξηλέγξατε τοὺς ταῦτα ποιοῦντας, etc.

[50] Demosth. ib. p. 214. νυνὶ δ᾽, ὅτ᾽ εἰς ταὐτὸ δίκαιον ἅμα καὶ
ὁ καιρὸς καὶ τὸ σύμφερον συνδεδράμηκεν, ἄλλον ἄρα τινὰ χρόνον
ἀναμενεῖτε τῆς ἰδίας ἐλευθερίας ἅμα καὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων
ἀντιλαβέσθαι;

[51] Demosth. ib. p. 220. εἰ ἄρα ποτὲ δεῖ παύσασθαι αἰσχρῶς
ἑτέροις ἀκολουθοῦντας, ἀλλὰ μηδ᾽ ἀναμνησθῆναι μηδεμιᾶς φιλοτιμίας
τῶν ἐξ ἀρχαιοτάτου καὶ πλείστου καὶ μάλιστα πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἡμῖν
ὑπαρχουσῶν.

[52] Demosth. (or Pseudo-Demosth.) Orat. De Fœdere Alex. ἐὰν οὖν
κελεύητε, γράψω, καθάπερ αἱ συνθῆκαι κελεύουσι, πολεμεῖν τοῖς
παραβεβηκόσιν.

A formal motion for declaring war would have brought upon the mover a prosecution under the Graphê Paranomôn. Accordingly, though intimating clearly that he thought the actual juncture (what it was, we do not know) suitable, he declined to incur such responsibility without seeing beforehand a manifestation of public sentiment sufficient to give him hopes of a favorable verdict from the Dikastery. The motion was probably not made. But a speech so bold, even though not followed up by a motion, is in itself significant of the state of feeling in Greece during the months immediately following the Alexandrine convention. This harangue is only one among many delivered in the Athenian assembly, complaining of Macedonian supremacy as exercised under the convention. It is plain that the acts of Macedonian officers were such as to furnish ample ground for complaint; and the detention of all the trading ships coming out of the Euxine, shows us that even the subsistence of Athens and the islands had become more or less endangered. Though the Athenians resorted to no armed interference, their assembly at least afforded a theatre where public protest could be raised and public sympathy manifested.

It is probable too that at this time Demosthenes and the other anti-Macedonian speakers were encouraged by assurances and subsidies from Persia. Though the death of Philip, and the accession of an untried youth of twenty, had led Darius to believe for the moment that all danger of Asiatic invasion was past, yet his apprehensions were now revived by Alexander’s manifested energy, and by the renewal of the Grecian league under his supremacy.[53] It was apparently during the spring of 335 B. C., that Darius sent money to sustain the anti-Macedonian party at Athens and elsewhere. Æschines affirms, and Deinarchus afterwards repeats (both of them orators hostile to Demosthenes)—That about this time, Darius sent to Athens 300 talents, which the Athenian people refused, but which Demosthenes took, reserving however 70 talents out of the sum for his own private purse: That public inquiry was afterwards instituted on the subject. Yet nothing is alleged as having been made out;[54] at least Demosthenes was neither condemned, nor even brought (as far as appears) to any formal trial. Out of such data we can elicit no specific fact. But they warrant the general conclusion, that Darius, or the satraps in Asia Minor, sent money to Athens in the spring of 335 B. C., and letters or emissaries to excite hostilities against Alexander.

[53] Diodorus, xvii. 7.

[54] Æschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 634; Deinarchus adv. Demosth. s.
11-19, p. 9-14. It is Æschines who states that the 300 talents
were sent to the Athenian people, and refused by them.

Three years later, after the battle of Issus, Alexander in his
letter to Darius accuses that prince of having sent both letters
and money into Greece, for the purpose of exciting war against
him. Alexander states that the Lacedæmonians accepted the money,
but that all the other Grecian cities refused it (Arrian, ii. 14,
9). There is no reason to doubt these facts; but I find nothing
identifying the precise point of time to which Alexander alludes.

That Demosthenes, and probably other leading orators, received such remittances from Persia, is no evidence of that personal corruption which is imputed to them by their enemies. It is no way proved that Demosthenes applied the money to his own private purposes. To receive and expend it in trying to organize combinations for the enfranchisement of Greece, was a proceeding which he would avow as not only legitimate but patriotic. It was aid obtained from one foreign prince to enable Hellas to throw off the worse dominion of another. At this moment, the political interests of Persia coincided with that of all Greeks who aspired to freedom. Darius had no chance of becoming master of Greece; but his own security prescribed to him to protect her from being made an appendage of the Macedonian kingdom, and his means of doing so were at this moment ample, had they been efficaciously put forth. Now the purpose of a Greek patriot would be to preserve the integrity and autonomy of the Hellenic world against all foreign interference. To invoke the aid of Persia against Hellenic enemies,—as Sparta had done both in the Peloponnesian war and at the peace of Antalkidas, and as Thebes and Athens had followed her example in doing afterwards—was an unwarrantable proceeding: but to invoke the same aid against the dominion of another foreigner, at once nearer and more formidable, was open to no blame on the score either of patriotism or policy. Demosthenes had vainly urged his countrymen to act with energy against Philip, at a time when they might by their own efforts have upheld the existing autonomy both for Athens and for Greece generally. He now seconded or invited Darius, at a time when Greece single-handed had become incompetent to the struggle against Alexander, the common enemy both of Grecian liberty and of the Persian empire. Unfortunately for Athens as well as for himself, Darius, with full means of resistance in his hands, played his game against Alexander even with more stupidity and improvidence than Athens had played hers against Philip.

While such were the aggressions of Macedonian officers in the exercise of their new imperial authority, throughout Greece and the islands—and such the growing manifestations of repugnance to it at Athens—Alexander had returned home to push the preparations for his Persian campaign. He did not however think it prudent to transport his main force into Asia, until he had made his power and personal ascendency felt by the Macedonian dependencies, westward, northward, and north-eastward of Pella—Illyrians, Pæonians, and Thracians. Under these general names were comprised a number[55] of distinct tribes, or nations, warlike and for the most part predatory. Having remained unconquered until the victories of Philip, they were not kept in subjection even by him without difficulty: nor were they at all likely to obey his youthful successor, until they had seen some sensible evidence of his personal energy.

[55] Strabo speaks of the Thracian ἔθνη as twenty-two in number,
capable of sending out 200,000 foot, and 15,000 horses (Strabo,
vii. Fragm. Vatic. 48).

Accordingly, in the spring, Alexander put himself at the head of a large force, and marched in an easterly direction from Amphipolis, through the narrow Sapæan pass between Philippi and the sea.[56] In ten days’ march he reached the difficult mountain path over which alone he could cross Mount Hæmus (Balkan.) Here he found a body of the free Thracians and of armed merchants of the country, assembled to oppose his progress; posted on the high ground with waggons in their front, which it was their purpose to roll down the steep declivity against the advancing ranks of the Macedonians. Alexander eluded this danger by ordering his soldiers either to open their ranks, so as to let the waggons go through freely—or where there was no room for such loose array, to throw themselves on the ground with their shields closely packed together and slanting over their bodies; so that the waggons, dashing down the steep and coming against the shields, were carried off the ground, and made to bound over the bodies of the men to the space below. All the waggons rolled down without killing a single man. The Thracians, badly armed, were then easily dispersed by the Macedonian attack, with the loss of 1500 men killed, and all their women and children made prisoners.[57] The captives and plunder were sent back under an escort to be sold at the seaports.

[56] Strabo, vii. p. 331 (Fragm.); Arrian, i. 1, 6; Appian, Bell.
Civil. iv. 87, 105, 106. Appian gives (iv. 103) a good general
description of the almost impassable and trackless country to the
north and north-east of Philippi.

[57] Arrian, i. 1, 12, 17. The precise locality of that steep
road whereby Alexander crossed the Balkan, cannot be determined.
Baron von Moltke, in his account of the Russian campaign in
Bulgaria (1828-1829), gives an enumeration of four roads,
passable by an army, crossing this chain from north to south (see
chap. i. of that work). But whether Alexander passed by any one
of these four, or by some other road still more to the west, we
cannot tell.

Having thus forced the mountain road, Alexander led his army over the chain of Mount Hæmus, and marched against the Triballi: a powerful Thracian tribe,—extending (as far as can be determined) from the plain of Kossovo in modern Servia northward towards the Danube,—whom Philip had conquered, yet not without considerable resistance and even occasional defeat. Their prince Syrmus had already retired with the women and children of the tribe into an island of the Danube called Peukê, where many other Thracians had also sought shelter. The main force of the Triballi took post in woody ground on the banks of the rivet Zyginus, about three days’ march from the Danube. Being tempted however, by an annoyance from the Macedonian light-armed, to emerge from their covered position into the open plain, they were here attacked by Alexander with his cavalry and infantry, in close combat, and completely defeated. Three thousand of them were slain, but the rest mostly eluded pursuit by means of the wood, so that they lost few prisoners. The loss of the Macedonians was only eleven horsemen and forty foot slain; according to the statement of Ptolemy, son of Lagus, then one of Alexander’s confidential officers, and afterwards founder of the dynasty of Greco-Egyptian kings.[58]

[58] Arrian, i. 2.