¹ The most impressive monument to this approach, and indeed its reductio ad absurdum, is Kornemann, E., Die Alexandergeschichte des Königs Ptolemaios I von Aegypten (Leipzig 1935)Google Scholar. For Kornemann the vast majority of Arrian's narrative was a verbatim transcript of Ptolemy, whose material was derived in its turn from the court archives. See the impressive review by Strasburger, H., Gnomon 13 (1937), 483–92Google Scholar, rightly protesting against the undervaluation of Arrian' own contribution. Even Strasburger, however, took for granted ‘der aktenmässige Grundstock’ of Arrian, which he agreed went back to Ptolemy (486). The belief in court Journals as the ultimate and official source of the tradition in Arrian goes back to Droysen (Geschichte des Hellenismus i² 2. 383–6), but the theory was most fully argued by U. Wilcken, Philologus 53 (1894), 80–126, esp. 117: ‘es sei mir erlaubt, in kurzen Zügen die Hypothese hinzustellen, dass die Ephemeriden Alexanders die Hauptquelle fün. die Memoiren des Königs Ptolemaios I gewesen sind, die wiederum den Grundstock der Anabasis Arrians bilden’. This statement by Wilcken became canonical for German scholarship (see the bibliography by Seibert, J., Alexander der Grosse, 1972, 5–6; 230–1). In English literature the most decisive statements are to be found in the work of Sir W.W. Tarn, who for all his scepticism of German Quellerikritik wholly accepted its basic premiss, that Ptolemy used the Journal (cf. Alexander the Great ii. 1–2; 263–4; 374).Google Scholar

² For recent attacks on the theory that the ‘Royal Ephemerides’ were Ptolemy' principal source see Pearson, L., Historia 3 (1954/1955), 432–9Google Scholar; Badian, E., Studies in Greek and Roman History (1964), 256–8;Google ScholarSamuel, A.E., Historia 14 (1965), 1–12Google Scholar; Bosworth, A.B., CQ 65 (1971), 117–23Google Scholar. On Ptolemy' view of his own role see Welles, C.B., ‘The Reliability of Ptolemy as an Historian’, Miscellanea Rostagni (Turin 1963), 101–16Google Scholar; and Seibert, J., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Ptolemaios I (Münch. Reim 56: 1969), 1–26Google Scholar. For propaganda against contemporaries see Errington, R.M., CQ 63 (1969), 233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Arr. 1. 12. 2–3. Arrian has in mind Thucydides' famous strictures of histories of the pentekontaetia (Thuc. 1. 97. 2), on which the passage is patently modell

⁴ Arr. praef. 3; cf. 7. 30. 3.

⁵ 6. 11. 2:

⁶ ‘Suda’, (=FGrH 153 F 6). No fragments have survived, but the references to Alexander in Dio' Orations are generally favourable (cf. Heuss, A., Antike and Abendland 4, 1954, 90–4Google Scholar). On any chronology of Arrian' literary development Dio' work must have preceded the Anabasis. Dio had been born about A.D. 40 and may not have outlived Trajan. It would be useful to know whether Arrian had any acquaintance with Plutarch' work on Alexander. The biography itself may have been published between 110 and 115 (Jones, C.P., JRS 56 (1966), 69Google Scholar; Hamilton, J.R., Plutarch Alexander 1969, xxxviiGoogle Scholar), perhaps not too long before the Anabasis (for this chronology see CQ 66, 1972, 163–85). The earlier speeches, De Alexandri fortuna aut virtute, were certainly available to Arrian, but he may not have been as familiar with the lesser works of Plutarch as he was with Dio of Prusa.Google Scholar

⁷ . 1. 12. 4:

⁸

⁹ That is the entire tenor of the historiographical excursus (1. 12. 3–5). Alexander has never achieved even the renown of the Ten Thousand despite the multitude of his historians and the greatness of his achievements. That gap Arrian will fill. Admittedly he concedes at 1. 12. 5 that the greatness of his subject will give him supremacy in Greek letters (cf. Schepens, G., Ancient Society 2, 1971, 262–3), but he takes for granted his ability to produce the definitive history of Alexander' reign.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Bithyniaca F. 1.3 (Roos):

¹¹ Lucian, De hist. constr. 52:

¹² e.g. the Bithyniaca of Asclepiades of Myrlea (FGrH 697); Alexander Polyhistor' (FGrH 273 F 12–13; 125); Menecrates' history of Nicaea (FGrH 701); and the monograph on the Kings of Bithynia by Nicander of Chalcedon (FGrH 700).

¹³ Cf. Walsh, P.G., Livy (1961), 141Google Scholar ff.; esp. 146–8. For more startling examples of what a secondary author could do with a respectable source see the discussion of Diodorus' use of Polybius by Drews, R., AJP 83 (1962), 384–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Arr. 1. 11. 1.

¹⁵ Schol. Dem. 19. 192: are quoted in full by Baege, W., De Mace-donum sacris (Diss. Hal. xxii.l. 1913), 10–11Google Scholar. Once he had collected the references Baege saw at once that Arrian' statement about Aegae was mistake (p.8 ‘errore auctoris’; so Geyer, F., REGoogle Scholar v. 716: ‘start “Aigai” muss “Dion” stehen’; Kalkris, J. N., Les Anciens Macedoniens i, Athens 1954, 251Google Scholar, n. 2). For the site of Dium see Livy 44. 6. 15 with Hammond, N.G.L., A History of Macedonia i (Oxford 1972), 125.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Polybius 4. 62. 2.

¹⁷ Diod. 17. 16. 3: the games in honour of the muses see schol. Dem. 19.192, quoted above.

¹⁸ . Dio, Orat. 2. 2:

¹⁹ . Arr 1. 11. 1: does not necessarily refer to the subsidiary tradition; it merely means that the material is taken from a source different from the source of the preceding material, in this case probably Aristobulus (cf. Schwartz, , RE ii. 912Google Scholar; Strasburger, H., Ptolemaios und Alex-under, 23).Google Scholar

²⁰ For full references to the cult of Zeus in Macedonia see Baege, op. cit. 1–20. The eponymous hero Macedon was said to have been a son of Zeus (Hesiod F 7 (O.C.T.)), and the Macedonian royal house was doubly descended from Zeus thanks to its Heraclid lineage (cf. Arr. 3. 3. 1–2).

²¹ Cf. Arr. 1. 10. 2; Plut. Camillus 19.10. The news of the destruction of Thebes reachec Athens at the time of the Great Mysteries, which were held between 15 and 24 Boedromion (IG ii². 1078. 11 ff.; Dow, S., HSCP 48, 1937, 111–20), roughly between 20 and 30 September according to the Julian calendar. Soon afterwards Alexander marched north to Macedonia.Google Scholar

²² For discussion of the Macedonian calendar see Beloch, , GG 1v ². 2. 26 ff.;Google ScholarSamuel, A.E., Greek and Roman Chronology (Munich 1972), 139Google Scholar ff. On the importance of the name Dios see Kalléris, , Les Anciens Macidoniens i.158.Google Scholar

²³ For Mazares the Mede see Herodotus 1. 156.2; 157.3; 160–1.

²⁴ Mithrines was made satrap of Armenia immediately after Gaugamela (Arr. 3. 16. 5; Diod. 17. 64. 6; Curt. 5. 1.44), and Amminapes was appointed to Parapamisadae immediately after the death of Darius (Arr. 3. 22. 1; cf. Curt. 6. 4. 25).

²⁵ Berve, , Das Alexanderreich (Munich 1926), ii.246Google Scholar, no. 486, following Justi, F, Iranisches Namenbuch (1895), 201Google Scholar, and Hoffmann, O., Die Makedonen (1906), 181.Google Scholar

²⁶ Curt. 5. 2. 16–17: ‘usa urbem Archelao et praesidium III milium tradidit, Xenophilo arcis cura mandata est milk Macedonum aetate gravibus praesidere arcis custodiae iussis, thesaurorum Callicrati tutela permissa, satrapea regionis Susianae restituta Abulitae.’

²⁷ Diod. 19. 17. 3; 48. 1; 48. 6.

²⁸ So Berve ii.282, no. 578; Lehmann-Haupt, , RE iiA. 143Google Scholar; Chr. Habicht, , RE ixA. 1565–1566Google Scholar. Olmstead, A.T., A History of the Persian Empire (Chicago 1948), 518–20, attempted a conflation of Arrian and Curtius. Mazarus, he rightly inferred, was the Persian commander of the citadel, retained by Alexander; Zenophilus (sic) was over the citadel. Olmstead wisely does not try to explain how the functions of the two men differed.Google Scholar

²⁹ Curt. 5. 1. 43–4 (supplementary material in Diod. 17. 64.5, derived from the common source); Arr. 3. 16. 4.

³⁰ Curt. 5. 1. 44: ‘Bagophanem, qui arcem tradiderat, se sequi iussit.’ Bagophanes is mentioned earlier in Curtius' elaborate description of the surrender of Babylon (5. 1. 20), by far the fullest and best extant account of the proceedings.

³¹ For a good description see Schachermeyr, F., Alexander in Babylon (Wien, SB, Phil.- Hist. Kl. cclxviii.3: 1970), 49–63.Google Scholar

³² The definitive discussion is by Newell, E.T., ‘Miscellanea Numismatica: Cyrene to India’, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 82 (1938), 82–8Google Scholar. Newell' conclusions have been accepted by Bellinger, A.R., Essays in the Coinage of Alexander the Great (1963), 65–6,Google Scholar and Rider, G. Le, Schweizer Münzblätter 85 (1972), 1–7Google Scholar

³³ Newell, op. cit. 72–5.

³⁴ Badian, E., Greece and Rome 12 (1965), 173Google Scholar, n. 4. The evidence for independent coinages in Alexander' reign is very slender. Even in Phoenicia local issues were superseded by the royal coinage, the only concession being that the kings of Aradus and Byblus added their own monogram (Bellinger, Essays, 50–6). The nearest parallel would be the lion staters of Mazaeus, which may have been issued while Mazaeus was satrap of Babylonia under Alexander. But the very uniqueness of these issues has evoked doubts about their attribution to Alexander' reign (Badian, op. cit. 173, apparently followed by Fox, R. Lane, Alexander the Great, 1973, 528). It is, however, a far cry from the satrap of Babylonia issuing his own coinage to the petty ruler of some unnamed city striking his own imitations of Attic tetradrachms.Google Scholar

³⁵ Six, J.P., Num. Chron. 1884, 141–3 Newell, 88, n. 172, observes that Mazarus as a mere phrurarch could not have struck his own coins under Alexander; that is true, and a conclusive argument against his own attribution. On his hypothesis Mazakes was at best under-governor, not a satrap.Google Scholar

³⁶ Compare Curtius' description of Bagophanes, the Persian citadel commander of Babylon: ‘arcis et regis pecuniae custos’.

³⁷ Even if the Aramaic legend is proved to read ‘Mazdak’ (which, given the difficulty of reading, is very unlikely), the issuer of the coins may still be identified as the Persian commander at Susa. Arrian' text is not infallible in these matters; at 3. 22. 1 all manuscripts read , and there may be a corruption at 3. 16. 9.

³⁸ So Hammond, N.G.L., JHS 94 (1974), 85, n. 34. Hammond is committed to taking Arrian' wording in deadly earnest because of a belief that his account is taken ultimately from a day-to-day diary compiled under Alexander and transmitted in an abbreviated but substantially correct form. (pp. 77–8).Google Scholar

³⁹ Thuc. 1. 24. 1; Ps.-Scylax 26; Eratosthenes ap. Steph. Byz., s.v. Strabc 7. 7. 8 (326). For the boundaries of the Taulantian kingdom see Hammond, , ABSA 61 (1966), 247.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Arr. 1. 6. 10 a cavalry force out of thin air. The expression merely means ‘Alexander' men’ and does not imply the presence of cavalry. Compare 1. 28. 5, where of refers to a battle line composed exclusively of infantry.

⁴¹ 1. 6. 11: Cleitus first took refuge in the city but then left to join Glaucias and the Taulantians. The siege must have been raised at the news of the revolt of Thebes (so Hammond 86). Arrian, however, says nothing of the circumstances of the Macedonian withdrawal.

⁴² Praef. 1:

⁴³ Arr. 3. 11. 9:

⁴⁴ Arr. 1.8.2; 1. 14. 2; 3. 16. 10; 3. 27. 1; Curt. 5. 1. 40; cf. Serve ii.26, no. 57.

⁴⁵ The emendation appeared in two works both published in 1668, Palmarius, J., Exercitationes in optimos auctores Graecos, 238, and the edition of the Anabasis by N. Blancardus. It was subsequently followed by all editors except Roos, who observed, ‘Arriano error imputandus’.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Diod. 17. 57. 3; Curt. 4. 13. 28 (Phaligrus Balacri-the emendation Philip pus is guaranteed by Diodorus).

⁴⁷ Along with Meleager he led the train of booty sent back from the Danube in 335 (Arr. 1. 4. 5). Ele is not mentioned after the battle of the Granicus.

⁴⁸ 1. 14. 2:

⁴⁹ So Köpke, R., Jahrb. für class. Phil. 99 (1869), 263–5Google Scholar; Droysen, , Kleine Schriften ii. 222–3 (accepted in Roos' text). The author of the supposed gloss must have been erudite for the name of Craterus' father is correctly given as Alexander (Arr. 1. 25. 9; Ind. 18. 5).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Cf. 2. 8. 4; 3. 11. 10.

⁵¹ is used at 3. 9. 6, 5. 20. 3, and 5. 21. 5 to refer to individual battalions. Polyaenus also refers to Perdiccas' battalion as (4. 3. 27; cf. Arr. 3. 18. 5). For the general usage see Isidore, Orig. 9. 3. 46: ‘proprie autem Macedonum phalanx, Gallorum caterva, nostra legio dicitur.’

⁵² Cf. 1. 28. 3 ( and hypaspists listed separately); so 7. 11. 3.

⁵³ Arr. 1. 14. 1 and 14. 6. The equation seems universally accepted; cf. Berve i.129; Tarn, , Alexander ii.157Google Scholar; Brunt, P.A., JHS 83 (1963), 26Google Scholar; Milns, R.D., JHS 86 (1966), 167.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ does not occur in Greek literature before the Hellenistic period, and outside Arrian it does not denote a cavalryman pace Tarn ii.157, n. 6, Didymus (col. xiii. 5–7) does not refer explicitly to a is more frequent; its use to refer to the vanguard goes back to Herodotus. Diodorus, however, uses the word to refer to Thracian cavalry (Diod. 17. 17. 4; for discussion see Milns, , JHS 86, 1966, 167), and it was certainly a technical term in Alexander' army.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ That appears to have been Berve' hypothesis (ii.164, no. 341). Hegelochus, he claims, was the commander of the temporarily placed under the wider command of Amyntas. He seems, however, to conceive all the scouts as a single group. If Arrian' narrative is literally correct, there were two separate groups.

⁵⁶ At 1. 16. 3 Arrian mentions Mithrobuzanes, satrap of Cappadocia, and three relatives of Darius; Mithridates, Abrupales, and Pharnaces. None appears in the list of commanders at 1. 12. 8. Again at 2. 11. 8, a passage very probably from Ptolemy (FGrH 138 F 6), Atizyes is said to have been one of the commanders at the Granicus. His name does not appear at 1. 12. 8. Even Kornemann (op. cit. 103) agreed that the beginning of the report of the council-of-war must come from Aristobulus.

⁵⁷ The words are bracketed in every subsequent edition of Arrian, and modern historians who have noted the problem accepted the theory of a gloss without argument (e.g. Berve ii.224, n. 2; Kornemann, op. cit. 154, n. 132).

⁵⁸ e.g. 4. 18. 3:

⁵⁹ This seems typical of the glosses posited by Schmieder. For his performance at 7. 11. 3 see Bosworth, , CQ 67 (1973), 246–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ The change of nomenclature was immaterial to Schmieder, who had followed a suggestion of Blancardus and eliminated all forms other than from his text. Once he had‘emended’ 6. 17. 3 as he could present the supposed gloss as an exact copy.

⁶¹ For discussion of the nomenclature and borders of the satrapy, see Herzfeld, E., The Persian Empire (Wiesbaden 1968), 331.Google Scholar

⁶² For other references to the Drangae see 3. 21. 1; 4. 18. 3; 7. 10. 6. For the Zarangae see 6. 27. 3; 7. 6. 3.

⁶³ Used by the bematists (FGrH 119 F 2: both Strabo and Pliny), Nearchus (Strabo 15. 2. 5 (721)), and the vulgate sources (Diod, 17. 78.4; 81. 1; 105. 7; Curt. 6. 6. 36).

⁶⁴ This depends on the assumption, which seems general, that 6. 17. 3 is taken from Ptolemy. If it does in fact come from Aristobulus, the argument is unaffected; we then assume that was Ptolemy' term.

⁶⁵ Justin 12. 10. 1–2. The convoy is said to have been led by Polyperchon, an obvious error. Polyperchon, however, may have been Craterus' lieutenant. He is not mentioned in Alexander' entourage after this time, and he is later explicitly attested as Craterus' second in command for the later convoy of veterans from Opis (Arr. 7. 12. 4; Justin 12. 12.8; cf. Serve ii.326, no. 654).

⁶⁵ a According to Strabo 15. 2. 5 (721) Craterus began his march at the Hydaspes . Even if the information is garbled in transition, it suits the northern point of departure rather than the area around Patala. Anspach, A.E., De Alexandri Magni Expeditione Indica (Leipzig 1903), 122, n. 389, suggested emending the text so offending blatantly against the principle of the lectio difficilior.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Arr. 6. 15. 4:

⁶⁷ Arr. 6. 15. 3; cf. Curt. 9. 8. 9–10.

⁶⁸ So Anspach, De Al. Magni Expeditione Indica 115, n. 365; Beloch, GG iv². 1. 30, n. 4. Oxyartes' name is bracketed in Roos' edition.

⁶⁹ Arr. Succ. F 1. 36 (Roos); cf. Diod. 18. 39. 6; Dexippus FGrH 100 F 8. 5.

⁷⁰ Diod. 18. 3. 2; Curt. 10. 10. 4; cf. Beloch iv². 2. 312–13.

⁷¹ Diod. 17. 102; Curt. 9. 8. 10. At 9. 8. 5 Curtius cites Cleitarchus by name for the casualties inflicted upon the Indians of Sambos' kingdom (=FGrH 137 F 25). The figure is germane to the narrative, and almost certainly the passage is excerpted directly or indirectly from Cleitarchus.

⁷² Diod. 102. 4. Curtius 9. 8. 8 merely refers to them as ‘aliae gentes’, but he places the foundation of an Alexandria in their territory.

⁷³ Diod. 102. 1. Curtius 9. 8. 4 terms them Sabarcae. In both sources they appear as the people immediately south of the Mali, which is the position of Arrian' it is usually inferred that the same tribe is referred to by all three writers (Anspach, op. cit. 112, n. 356; Berve ii.315, n. 1).

⁷⁴ For the procedure, compare Alexander' division of the army at the beginning of the Indus Journey (Arr. 6. 4. 1 6. 5. 5–7).

⁷⁵ The text at 6. 15. 1 is corrupt. There i a lacuna which contained the name of a second Indian tribe which surrendered to Alexander. Roos supplied the name from the paragraph below (6. 15. 4), clearly thinking in terms of a doublet.

⁷⁶ Diod. 102. 4; Curt. 9. 8. 8.

⁷⁷ Arr. 4. 1. 3; compare the foundation of Alexandria in Egypt (Arr. 3. 1. 5).

⁷⁸ Arr. 6. 15. 4; cf. Diod. 102. 1; Curt. 9. 8. 3.

⁷⁹ Despite the similarities of wording scholars have invariably believed in the foundation of two separate Alexandrias; cf. Droysen iii². 2. 230; Berve i.294; Tscherikower, V., Die hell. Saidtegrandungen (Philologus Suppl. 19. 1: 1927) 109; Tarn ii.239. Tarn recognizes the scantiness of the evidence and suggests that, even if finished, both cities were swept away in Chandragupta' conquest.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Strabo 15. 1. 33 (701). At the head of the chapter comes the curious reference to the 5,000 Indian cities, each the size of Meropid Cos. This has been thought a topical reference by Onesicritus, whose home, Astypalaea, was an immediate neighbour of Cos (Pearson, L., The Lost Histories of Alexander, 1960, 106).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Arr. 3. 19. 3–4.

⁸² Bisthanes (Serve, no. 215) is only mentioned by Arrian, and the emergence of a son of Artaxerxes III Ochus as late as 330 is a problem. According to the detailed account of Diodorus (17. 5. 3–5) all the sons of Artaxerxes were murdered by the eunuch Bagoas with the single exception of Arses, the predecessor of Darius III. When Arses was murdered in his turn the house of Artaxerxes was extinct (Diod. 5. 5). Diodorus may be mistaken and Bagoas' purge not exhaustive (so Nöldeke, Th., Aufsätze zur persischen Geschichte, 1887, 81, n. 1), but on the other hand Arrian or his source might be in error about Bisthanes' relationship to the Achaemenid house.Google Scholar

⁸³ 3.19. 5–8.

⁸⁴ 3. 20. 1.

⁸⁵ Plut. Al. 42. 5. For the arrest of Dariu: see Arr. 3. 21. 1; Curt. 5. 13. 3. There is divergence over the precise details but agreement that reports of Darius' danger were brought by Bagistanes the Babylonian.

⁸⁶ Diod. 17. 74. 3–4: placed immediately after Darius' death and three days' journey from the Parthian capital Hecatompylos (for the location see Hansman, J., Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1968, 116–19). This is a patent mistake. Curtius locates the troubles with the Macedonians at Hecatompylos itself (6. 2. 15). Diodorus' reference to the city comes in the course of his narrative of the journey into Hyrcania, which runs parallel to Curtius (Diod. 75. 1–2 = Curt. 6. 4. 1–7). Curtius makes the first stage a three days' march to the Hyrcanian border. The same three days' march occurs in Diodorus, who with typical lack of care makes Hecatompylos the terminus, not the starting-point, of the march. For another Diodoran error see n. 97.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Curt. 6. 2. 17: ‘fecerant fidem rumori temere vulgato Graeci milites redire iussi domos’; cf. Justin 12. 1. 1.

⁸⁸ Arr. 3. 20. 3:

⁸⁹ For the geography of the Caspian Gates see Stahl, A.F. von, Geogr. Journ. 64 (1924), 318–19Google Scholar; Treidler, H., RE xxii. 322– 33Google Scholar; Standish, J.F., Greece and Rome 17 (1970), 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁰ Arr. 3. 19. 4:

⁹¹ Arr. 3. 19. 3:

⁹² Arr. 3. 19. 5 (7,000 talents). Diodorus 74.5 and Strabo 15. 3. 9 (731) agree on 8,000.

⁹³ See particularly Polybius 10. 27. 10–13. As late as the reign of Antiochus III almost 4,000 talents of coin was struck from the gold and silver embellishments of the temple of Anaitis. The rest of the palace complex, Polybius says, had been denuded of its decorations during the reigns of Alexander, Antigonus, and Seleucus I. There would presumably have been enough to pay off the allied troops, but Alexander hardly had the time to strip the necessary silver from the walls and roofs of Ecbatana.

⁹⁴ Curt. 5. 13. 1–3: ‘Alexander audito Dareum movisse ab Ecbatanis, omisso itinere quod patebat in Mediam fugientem insequi pergit strenue. Tabas (oppidum est in Paraetacene ultima) pervenit; ibi transfugae nuntiant praecipitem fuga Bactra petere Dareum. certiora deinde cognoscit ex Bagistane Babylonio.’

⁹⁵ Cf. Marquart, J., Philologus Suppl. 10 (1907), 30–4Google Scholar, arguing that Curtius has conflated the two reports of Bisanthes and Bagistanes, conflating the events of a month into a single day and confusing the stay at Ecbatana with that at Rhagae. On the contrary, Curtius mentions both reports, althoug only Bagistanes is mentioned by name. His account may be brief, but it does not imply that all these reports came on a single day. It is moreover quite explicit; Alexander moved from the direct road to Ecbatana and passed through Tabae. The location of Tabae is unknown. Marquart suggested emending to Gabae, the provincial capital of Paraetacene mentioned by Diodorus (19. 26. 1; 34. 7), and he has been followed recently by Fox, R. Lane, Alexander the Great, 529–30Google Scholar. That i s unfortunate. Tabae is mentioned by Polybius as the town in Persis where Antiochus IV perished after his expedition against the shrine of Anaitis in Elymais (Polybius 31.9. 3; cf. App. Syr. 66. 352; FGrH 260 F 56). Elymais was the Seleucid term for the mountain country between Susa and the Median border, comprising part of what had been Paraetacene. It seems clear that the town where Antiochus died is the same as that visited by Alexander; both are named Tabae (so Weissbach, , RE ivA. 1840–1841Google Scholar). The location of Tabae is still difficult. Radet, G. (Mélanges Glotz, Paris 1932, ii.772) mistakenly supposed that Tabae was the site of Bagistanes' message and located it at Padi, east of the Caspian Gates on the further side of the plain of Khar. It is, however, clear that it was only after leaving Tabae that Alexander received Bagistanes' ‘more certain news’. From Curtius' narrative it looks as though the town should be placed somewhere on Alexander's route to Rhagae after leaving the road to Ecbatana. It is at this stage that Arrian places the influx of deserters from Darius' army with their news of the flight beyond the Caspian Gates. Alexander was still in Paraetacene; according to Strabo the district extended as far north as the Caspian Gates (16. 1. 17 (744); cf. 11. 13.6 (524)).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Radet, G. (Mélanges Glotz ii.770) accepts Curtius in part, arguing that Alexander sent off a flying column to intercept the Persian force. None the less he regards the statement that Alexander himself diverged from the road as an indisputable error.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Curt. 6. 2. 17. Diodorus 74. 3 reads as though the allied troops were physically present when Alexander discharged them . That is impossible. Alexander had only a small fraction of his army with him at the end of the pursuit of Darius, and it is most unlikely that the Hellenic troops were forced to march to Hecatompylos, only to be dismissed on arrival.

⁹⁸ Note particularly H. Strasburger' impressive list of hardships undergone by the Macedonian army (Hermes 80, 1952, 470–3); most are reported in full by the vulgate sources but either omitted or glossed over by Arrian.

⁹⁹ According to Arrian' own narrative the Thessalian cavalry who volunteered for further service at Ecbatana only reached Alexander much later in 330 when he was at the borders of Areia (3. 25. 4). They arrived with the mercenary cavalry who had served with Parmenion in Media. Had they re-enlisted when Alexander was physically present, he would presumably have taken them in the pursuit of Darius along with the mercenary cavalry of Erigyius (cf. 3. 20. 1).

¹⁰⁰ Arr. 3. 4. 5:

¹⁰¹ Curt. 4. 8. 1 (explicit); Diod. 17. 51. 4–52. 1; Justin 11. 11. 13. Plut. AI. 26 places the foundation of Alexandria before the journey to Siwah.

¹⁰² Alexander historians unhesitantly accepted the Ptolemaic version until Welles, C.B. (Histaria 11, 1962, 278–81Google Scholar) argued that Ptolemy was wrong and that Alexandria was in fact founded on the return journey. In this he was followed by Borza, E.N. (Historia 16, 1967, 369Google Scholar). Fraser, P.M. (Opuscula Atheniensia 7, 1967, 30,Google Scholar n. 27) exposed many of the weaknesses of Welles's arguments, but did not tackle the fundamental problem of the conflict of primary sources. See also, in support of Ptolemy, Schachermeyr, F., Alexander der Grosse²(Wien, SB. cclxxxv: 1973), 253Google Scholar, n. 287; Fox, R. Lane, Alexander the Great, 522: 525.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ I here follow the discussion of Bates, O., The Eastern Libyans (1916), 14.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Hdt. 3. 25. 3–7.

¹⁰⁵ Arr. 6. 24. 2–3; Strabo 15. 1. 5 (686) = FGrH 133 F 3.

¹⁰⁶ Plut. Al. 26. 11–12. There is a possibility that this passage, like the description of the journey itself, is taken from Callisthenes of Olynthus.

¹⁰⁷ Philodemus Rhet. 4. 1 = FGrH 137 T 12: It is unfortunately by no means certain that the Cleitarchus here mentioned was in fact the historian of Alexander. He may be an otherwise unknown rhetorician (cf. Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford 1972, ii.717–18).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Welles, , Historia 11 (1962), 279:Google Scholar ‘it is possible that he [Ptolemy\ is wrongly quoted’; Borza, , Historia 16 (1967), 369: ‘whether it was Arrian' error in citing Ptolemy or an unresolved conflict in Ptolemy himself cannot be ascertained’.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Note the arrival of Amyntas with reinforcements from Macedonia, placed at Babylon by Curtius (5. 1. 40–2), at Susa by Arrian (3. 16. 9–11), and at an intermediate point in Sittacene by Diodorus (17. 65. 1).

¹¹⁰ Arr. 3. 1. 5:

¹¹¹ Curt. 4. 8. 1–2: ‘contemplates loci naturam primum in ipsa insula statuerat urbem condere; inde, ut adparuit magnae sedis insulam haud capacem esse, elegit urbi locum ubi nunc est Alexandrea.’For the visit to Lake Mareotis on the outward journey see Curt. 4. 7. 9; Arr. 3. 1. 5.

¹¹² There is an exact parallel in Plutarch's description of Gaugamela. He describes Alexander' coolness before the battle and caps his account with a similar incident in the battle itself (32. 1–7). After the anecdote he reverts to the prelude of the battle and Alexander arming himself. The link, however, is very misleading and gives the impression that Alexander only put on his armour after the frenzied action described before 32. 8: This led Tarn to stigmatize the passage as the worst farrago of nonsense in the Greek language (Alexander ii. 352). All that is at fault is the misleading transitional phrase. For examples of violent chronological jumps in the Lysander see Andrewes, A., Phoenix 25 (1971), 211–12.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Note the sagacious remarks of Seibert, J., Alexander der Grosse (1972), 6, who stresses the danger of accepting the theory of the Ephemerides as the official basis of ‘the best Alexander literature’ without first refuting the criticisms evinced in recent research: ‘sollte diese rich bestatigen, musste die bisherige Quellenkritik neu überdacht werden.’Google Scholar