The Obliteration Of The Uxian Hill Tribes By Alexander The Great

On October 1, 331 BCE, Alexander the Great dealt a psychological death blow to the reign of the Persian King of Kings, Darius III, at Gaugamela. The Persian ruler had a vast numerical superiority during the battle, and the battlefield, itself, at Gaugamela had been flattened and leveled by workers to further the advantage of the Persian chariots and cavalry. Nevertheless, Alexander marched his seasoned warriors to Darius’ location and beat the Persian King of Kings in a fair fight at dawn. As Darius fled from the battlefield, many Persians knew that their leader had no valid excuses for his defeat—Alexander was simply the superior general.

Instead of chasing after the fleeing Darius, Alexander instead moved to seize nearby vital cities while the Persian ruler was too weak to respond. First, he reached Babylon and from there marched to Susa. Both cities accepted the victorious king into their walls without a struggle. Departing from Susa, Alexander and his army entered the territory of the Uxians, a people who controlled a swath of land between Susa and the city of Persepolis, the Persian capital. The Uxians that lived in the plains region willingly submitted to Alexander. Other Uxians living in the hillsides, however, had no intention of bowing to Alexander. They had not even paid tribute to Darius III, despite living in the heart of the Persian Empire, and as such, the Uxians in the hills stanchly wanted to maintain their independence and even demanded that Alexander pay a toll if he should wish to cross through their land. The hill people, however, failed to realize that the Persian Empire was crumbling and a new empire-builder was in town. Unfortunately for the Uxian hill tribes, Alexander had little patience for rogue, obstinate communities in his growing domain.

According to the Roman historian, Arrian (c. 90-173+), who based his book mainly on the eyewitness accounts of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, the Uxians were informed that Alexander’s army would be heading toward a pass in their territory and that the Macedonian king would hand them their just toll. Of course, Alexander and the hill tribes had vastly different ideas of what was justly deserved.

As the message was traveling to the Uxian hill communities, Alexander sent most of his army, under the command of Craterus, to quickly march for the pass in order to seize the high ground. The Macedonian king, however, did not go with the rest of the army. Instead, he stayed behind with a reported force of around 8,000 men and recruited some guides from Susa who knew the Uxian countryside. After waiting long enough for the hill warriors to abandon their homes for the pass, Alexander had the guides from Susa lead his band of troops to known villages on the hillside. Under the cover of dark, Alexander’s raiding party surprised several defenseless villages, pillaging and killing as they combed through the hills.

After his attack on the hill villages, Alexander rushed with such speed for the pass that he arrived there before the Uxians were present. Alexander, himself, took up a position on the high ground of the pass and sent Craterus’ earlier-mentioned portion of the army to a hidden location at the back of the passage.

When the Uxians finally arrived, Alexander did not wait for diplomacy, but instantly sounded a charge from his favorable position on the high ground. The hill warriors, startled both by Alexander’s aggression and his advantageous position, lost the will to fight and fled back for the safety of the opposite hills. The path they choose to flee, however, brought the Uxian hill warriors directly into the clutches of Craterus’ hidden troops. With the hill warriors caught between the forces of Alexander and Craterus, the battle at the pass quickly turned into a massacre.

After the battle was over, Alexander’s bloodlust apparently cooled, for he supposedly let the survivors of the hill tribes keep their land. Of course, this came with stipulations, such as free passage for Alexander’s army and a regular tribute payment of horses, mules and sheep.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Alexander and Porus, painted by Charles Le Brun (1619–1690), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian, translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt. New York: Penguin Classics, 1971.
• Alexander the Great by Philip Freeman. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2011. 
• Alexander the Great: The Story of an Ancient Life by Thomas R. Martin and Christopher W. Blackwell. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.  

Alexander the Great Supposedly Set One Of His Servants On Fire

The year was 331 BCE—Alexander the Great had recently delivered a humiliating defeat to the Persian King Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela. As the Persian forces retreated further into the interior of their empire, Alexander the Great seized control of most of Mesopotamia, including the famed city of Babylon.

One of the stranger tales about Alexander’s life occurred while he was marching his forces from the battlefield of Guagamela to the city of Babylon. Apparently, during the journey, Alexander’s forces encountered a town that overflowed with some sort of flammable liquid. Ancient commentators described the petroleum-based substance in different ways. Strabo (c. 64 BCE- 21 CE), in Book XVI of his Geography, wrote that Alexander encountered asphalt or naphtha near the Euphrates River. Plutarch (c. 46-119 CE), in his Alexander (Chapter 35), also identified the flammable material as naphtha. Quintus Curtius (1st century CE), in his History of Alexander (Book V), named the location as the Babylonian city of Mennis and claimed that the liquid was actually bitumen.

Anyway, wherever the location and whatever the flammable substance, the locals were eager to make a spectacle of their oily export. Plutarch (who wrote the most elaborate account of the incident) claimed that the townspeople used their naphtha or bitumen to light a path for Alexander, so that he could easily find his guest quarters for the night. As Alexander followed the flickering flames back to his temporary home, his curiosity about the oily substance only increased. The display left such an impact, that the Macedonian king was still musing about the stuff, even while bathing.

As the story (of Strabo and Plutarch) goes, Alexander’s scientific curiosity got the better of him during his bath, and dangerous ideas began to hatch in his head. Eventually, Alexander and his bath attendants decided to carry out more experiments with the fascinating naphtha or bitumen. According to Plutarch, an unfortunate man named Stephanus was somehow convinced by Alexander and at least one other bath attendant to become a human torch. In Plutarch’s account, Stephanus’ participation in the dangerous experiment was consensual, but in Strabo’s version, the poor man’s willingness to burn was much less certain.

Either way, Stephanus was thoroughly covered with the flammable substance and set alight. From the sources, it seems that Alexander almost immediately regretted his decision—not to mention how Stephanus must have felt. As soon as the bath attendant was engulfed in hungry flames, Alexander tried to douse the inferno with a jar of water, but that did not extinguish the fire. It took several bath attendants splashing water on the burning Stephanus for the petroleum-fueled flames to be finally put out. In the end, Stephanus supposedly survived the ordeal, but he was severely burned.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Top Picture Attribution: (Alexander the Great by Placido Costanzi (1702-1759) setting fire to Jan Hus (painted by Spiezer Chronik (1485)), both [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• Alexander the Great by Philip Freeman. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2011. 
• http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plut.+Alex.+35&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0243  
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/16A*.html 
• https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008158415;view=1up;seq=373  
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Plutarch 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Strabo  
• http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/curtius-rufus-quintus-probably-fl

Heracles Was The Name Alexander The Great Chose For His First-Born Son

(Marriage D'alexandre Et Roxanne, painted by René-Antoine Houasse  (1645–1710), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Numerous ancient sources, such as Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Justin, Polyaenus, Pliny and Strabo commented on the multiple marriages of Alexander the Great. Around 327 BCE, Alexander married a teenager named Roxane (also spelled Roxana). She was the daughter of Oxyartes, a vassal of Persia who ruled from a formidable fortress known as Sogdian Rock. Years later, in 324 BCE, Alexander married Stateira, the eldest daughter of the deceased Persian Great King, Darius III. At the same time, he also married Parysatis, the daughter of Darius’ predecessor, Artaxerxes. Despite these three women being the only known legitimate wives of Alexander the Great, none of them bore Alexander his first-born son, Heracles. No, the mother of Heracles was a woman named Barsine, Alexander’s mistress who accompanied the King of Macedonia during most of his military campaign.

 Barsine was born from a union between a Greek woman and a Persian satrap named Artabazus II. Although she was technically Persian, Barsine was well versed in the Greek language and culture. After participating in a revolt, Artabazus was driven into exile, where he and his family (including Barsine) found sanctuary in the court of Philip II, in Macedonia. It is entirely likely that Barsine and Alexander knew each other well as children.

Nevertheless, Barsine returned to the Persian Empire, where she was soon married to her uncle, then widowed, and then married again to Memnon of Rhodes, who served as the main commander of the Greek mercenaries serving in the Persian army. Memnon, however, also met an early death when he died of illness during his siege of Mytilene, leaving Barsine, once again, a widow.

Alexander the Great unwittingly assured a reunion between himself and his childhood friend in 333 BCE when he sent his general, Parmenion, to seize the treasury located in the city of Damascus. When Parmenion arrived at the city with a detachment of soldiers, he found a large mass of Persians gathering outside the city in preparation to flee further into the interior of the Persian Empire. The fleeing citizens of Damascus were so numerous that Parmenion initially believed an army had sallied out of the city to face him in battle. Parmenion immediately arrayed his men for a fight, but his opponents did not behave as expected—the citizens of Damascus took one look at Parmenion’s troops and scattered in fear. Parmenion immediately gave chase and rounded up his newfound prisoners. When Parmenion returned to Alexander the Great, he brought with him hundreds of tons in gold and silver, as well as a host of prisoners. Among those captured from Damascus was Barsine.

Alexander the Great welcomed his childhood acquaintance warmly when he learned of her capture. There is no clear account of how their relationship sparked to life, but most ancient sources agreed that Alexander and Barsine became enthralled in a passionate affair quickly after Parmenion secured Damascus in 333 BCE. Sources such as Plutarch reported that Barsine remained an important person in the life of Alexander the Great until as late as 324 BCE, when she was present at the marriages between the Macedonian king and his new royal Persian wives, Sateira and Parysatis, at the mass wedding in Susa.

As the Persian Empire collapsed, fruit soon formed from the affair between Alexander and Barsine. Diodorus wrote that a son was born to the pair in 327 BCE, but Justin suggested that the birth occurred much later, in 324 BCE. Precision of dating aside, Barsine gave birth to the first known son of Alexander the Great. In a calculated, prideful move, Alexander the Great named his first-born son, Heracles. It was an unsubtle reference to his self-proclaimed divine lineage. After all, through his mother, Alexander supposedly traced his family back to Achilles and the nymph, Thetis. From his father’s side, Alexander claimed familial ties to the mythological Heracles and Zeus. As far as historians know, Alexander and Barsine were the first Hellenistic nobles bold enough to name their son ‘Heracles’—the name would become more fashionable after the death of Alexander.

Heracles, however, was an illegitimate child and his future in his father’s empire would always be uncertain, especially after Alexander’s first wife, Roxane, gave birth to a son named Alexander IV in the year of Alexander’s death. Yet, neither boy would live to inherit power from their father. Upon the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, Heracles and Alexander the IV were largely pushed aside and used as pawns by powerful Macedonian generals. Both of Alexander the Great’s sons met suspicious or violent ends before the turn of the century.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Sources:

• Alexander the Great by Philip Freeman. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2011.  
• Alexander the Great: The Story of an Ancient Life by Thomas R. Martin and Christopher W. Blackwell. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 
• http://www.academicroom.com/article/alexander-and-persian-women  

Alexander The Great’s Rival, Darius III, Had A Truly Remarkable Army

(Darius III at Issus, c. 1st century BCE, found in Pompeii, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

When Alexander the Great began his fateful invasion of the Persian Empire in 334 BCE, the Persians were by no means the underdogs of the war. Even though Alexander had landed an army of around 50,000 men within the Persian Empire, that number was only a small fraction of what the Persian Great King, Darius III, could field in defense of his lands.

Ancient Greek historians loved to embellish numbers. They often drastically increased the scale of battles to make their great accomplishments seem even greater. Nevertheless, even with the most conservative description of Darius III’s military force, the Persians had a distinct manpower advantage against the forces of Alexander the Great.

  (The Battle of Alexander at Issus (cropped), by Albrecht Altdorfer  (1480–1538), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Drawing from all the resources in the Persian Empire, Darius III gathered an army in Babylon, a force he would lead personally against Alexander’s marauding army. The pool of manpower at the disposal of the empire was staggering. From Persia’s heartland in modern Iran, the empire had spread east toward the Indus River Valley of India, as well as westward into Turkey, and south into Egypt. From these lands (also including some of central Asia), a safe estimate is that the Darius III could muster around 100,000 infantry and 20,000 cavalry. Along with this impressive army, Darius had access and means to hire immense numbers of mercenaries—he is thought to have employed more Greek soldiers than Alexander the Great.

The military might that Darius III gathered at Babylon in 333 BCE was awe-inspiring. It apparently took a whole day for the army to march before their Great King in parade. Even though much of the Persian army had not yet arrived, Darius III felt he had a great enough force to crush the young Macedonian upstart.

Darius III first met Alexander the Great in the Battle of Issus in 333 BCE. The Pinarus River separated the two forces and the riverbank was rough and elevated on the side of the Persian camp. In addition, Darius had the clear numerical advantage—ancient sources such as Curtius, Diodorus Siculus, Polybius, Plutarch, Justin and Arrian estimate between 300,000-600,000 Persian troops in attendance. Modern estimates, however, reduce the forces of Darius III to around 75,000 men at Issus, which still leaves him with a significant manpower advantage.

Despite the formidable Persian show of force, Alexander the Great did not falter. The Macedonian king did what few generals would suggest—he charged across the river and up the incline to crash against the larger Persian forces and outflank Darius III’s elite center, causing the mighty Persian army to flee. Despite having a smaller force and terrible terrain, Alexander the Great won a decisive victory against Darius III’s truly spectacular army.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Sources:

• Alexander the Great by Philip Freeman. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2011. 
• Alexander the Great: The Story of an Ancient Life by Thomas R. Martin and Christopher W. Blackwell. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.  

Alexander The Great Was One Of The First Military Minds To Use Ancient Anti-Personnel Artillery

(Alexander (by Placido Costanzi (Italian, 1702-1759)) with a catapult pointed at Darius III (Pompeii mosaic), all images Public Domain via Creative Commons)

Alexander the Great and his father Philip II were two of the greatest military innovators of the ancient world. Philip took control of Greece by renovating the Macedonian military. He outfitted his men in light armor with small shields, and equipped his infantry phalanxes with spears that were much longer than those used by the average Greek hoplite. The result was an infantry force that had long reach, but was also incredibly maneuverable. Philip also modified the doctrine of his cavalry to work closely in tandem with his infantry, and he developed a contingent of military engineers that could create infrastructure and build siege engines. Much of Alexander the Great’s successes can be attributed to his father’s brilliant military innovations, but Alexander perfected what his father developed, and he put into action new, genius war strategies of his own.

One of the areas of war that Alexander the Great revolutionized was the use of ancient artillery in battle. Most ancient generals, including Alexander’s father, thought that machines like catapults were purely siege engines—and in keeping with the name, these devices were usually only used against walls and other settlement fortifications. Alexander the Great, however, being the military genius that he was, envisioned that catapults could be used in far greater a degree than just simply lobbing rocks at walls. Historians cite Alexander the Great as one of the earliest military innovators to use artillery, like catapults, against enemy military formations during battle, and not just during sieges.

Artillery worked well with Alexander’s style of warfare. He liked to surprise his enemy, get into their heads and spread confusion and fear. Firing large projectiles from catapults at infantry formations served as a powerful form of psychological warfare, and any break in discipline caused by Alexander’s artillery gave the Macedonian infantry and cavalry vital advantages to utilize during battle.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Sources:

• Alexander the Great by Philip Freeman. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2011.  
• Alexander the Great: The Story of an Ancient Life by Thomas R. Martin and Christopher W. Blackwell. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Alexander The Great Looted More Than A Trillion Modern U. S. Dollars Worth Of Gold And Silver In His First Three Years Of Rule

(Bars of Gold, [Public Domain] via Pixabay)

When Alexander the Great expanded his power from Macedonia and Greece to Egypt, Persia and India, he was bound to make a lot of money. The sheer size of the treasures he amassed, however, is simply baffling.

All of the gold and silver that Alexander captured is usually measured in talents. A talent is a tricky measurement that can often vary widely depending on the source. Sometimes, a talent is noted to be around 25.8 kilograms (56.9 pounds) of weight, but in other sources a talent is approximately 50 kilograms (110 pounds). Either way, a single talent is estimated to be worth nearly 6,000 days of wages to the average skilled worker in Alexander the Great’s day.

By the time Alexander had taken Egypt and pushed deep into the Persian Empire, he had already looted around 80,000 talents of gold and silver. His greatest prize, however, was found when Alexander seized the city of Persepolis, the capital city of Persia and the location of Persia’s royal treasury. In that one city, Alexander won himself a further 120,000 talents of gold and silver. Once Alexander the Great had captured Persepolis, he had gathered around 200,000 talents of precious metals, netting him an unbelievable amount of gold and silver that equates to around $1.6 trillion modern U.S. dollars in his first three years as king of Macedonia.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Source:

• Alexander the Great: The Story Of An Ancient Life, by Thomas R. Martin and Christopher W. Blackwell. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.