ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE AND COMPANY’S
PUBLICATIONS

Constable’s Oriental Miscellany, a series that ... has the strongest claim on popularity.—Notes and Queries.

Already published

Vol. I.

BERNIER’S TRAVELS IN THE MOGUL EMPIRE. An entirely new edition, with illustrations, and reproductions of maps from early editions. By Archibald Constable, Mem. As. Soc. Bengal, F.S.A.Scot. Cr. 8vo, pp. liv + 500. Price 6s. nett.

The old translation has now been revised and edited in very scholarly fashion.—The Times.

This is a scholarly volume, and bodes well for the success of the Miscellany.—The Scotsman.

The New Miscellany ... has been right worthily inaugurated by a reprint of Bernier’s Travels in India, which must delight the scholar and lover of books.—The Bombay Gazette.

An almost perfect instance of careful, painstaking, and judicious editing.—The Pioneer.

The excellent editing, as well as outward get-up ... are a guarantee that this new venture ... will supply a long-felt want.—The Times of India.

The student will know how to prize the work, and the general reader will find it very interesting reading.—The Manchester Guardian.

Since their first appearance in Paris, in 1670, many have been the reprints and translations of Bernier’s Travels.... With all this, however, the book itself is not easily accessible. In offering the English Public a new edition of it, Messrs. Archibald Constable and Company have therefore no need to apologise. It is a fact that until this publication no really satisfactory edition has existed. It is now edited not only with great care, but also with a laudable regard to the needs of the general reader.—The Anti-Jacobin.

The book abounds with curious scenes and anecdotes of native life in India, amusing in themselves and interesting for comparison with the ways, habits, and ideas of modern India.... The running glossary of Indian terms and words is very useful; so are the brief notices of distinguished persons and remarkable places mentioned in the text; there is also a chronicle of Bernier’s life, a bibliography of his works, and an excellent index.—The Speaker.

The book is of almost indispensable necessity to the reader of history, being accurate and painstaking to a high degree.—The Academy.

The volume has been admirably edited and illustrated. The numerous allusions in the text to individuals, places, productions of art and industry, etc., are well explained in brief but sufficient notes, which contain the results of careful research in contemporary historians, and of an intimate personal acquaintance with Indian life and industry at the present day.—The Scottish Geographical Magazine.

Vol. II.

POPULAR READINGS IN SCIENCE. By John Gall, M.A., LL.B., late Professor of Mathematics and Physics, Canning College, Lucknow, and David Robertson, M.A., LL.B., B.Sc. With many Diagrams, a Glossary of Technical Terms, and an Index. Cr. 8vo, pp. 468. Price 5s. nett.

The authors lay no claim to originality, but have exercised a judicious choice in the selection of subject-matter.... The narrative style which has been adopted by the authors will make the book acceptable to general readers who are anxious to make acquaintance with modern science.—Nature.

It is hardly to be expected that this second volume of Constable’s Oriental Miscellany will meet with such universal acclamation as the first volume, which consisted of Bernier’s Travels. But when rightly considered, it equally shows the thoroughness with which the publishers have thrown themselves into the enterprise.—The Academy.

While the essays are such as would attract and instruct a general reader, they appear to have been written specially with a view to the needs of Indian students approaching the study of science for the first time.... They are well adapted to this end, and cannot fail to create in their readers a desire to push their knowledge further.—The Scotsman.

The new volume of Constable’s Oriental Miscellany would have delighted Macaulay and the champions of “Occidentalism” in Indian education in Lord William Bentinck’s day.... Messrs. Gall and Robertson ... have prepared a collection of essays which will be at least as acceptable to the general reader as to the student, in which the results of the most modern researches in physical science are brought up to date.... In each case the subject is treated in a clear and interesting way ... it is a most commendable undertaking.—The Bombay Gazette.

The title sufficiently indicates the lines on which the two collaborators have worked. Theirs is no dry-as-dust text-book; it is rather a collection of scientific facts forming chapters in what has aptly been called the romance of science.... Messrs. Archibald Constable and Company have a particular interest in this country, and their Oriental Miscellany is so well edited, printed, and published, that it is easy to predict for it a wide popularity.—The Madras Mail.

The second volume of Constable’s Oriental Miscellany, just published under the above heading, has been designed to meet an undoubted want, and will hardly yield in usefulness to any in the projected series.... While elementary principles are explained with sufficient clearness to enable the work to be used independently of other text-books, the compilers have devoted much attention and space to many of the results of scientific researches which have mainly distinguished the present century. The Darwinian theory, for instance, is not only admirably summarised in itself, but we are furnished with a useful précis of the arguments pro et con, together with an account of the more recent discoveries of paleontologists which have strengthened the doctrine of the evolution of organic beings, and an outline of the views regarding it of the savants of all nations. The book is one which should secure a large number of general readers, who will find in it a vast store of useful information placed before them in a peculiarly readable and acceptable form.—The Pioneer.

This is a popular treatise covering a very wide range of subjects.... A well-written book like a modernised Lardner, or a fin-de-siècle edition of the Scientific Information for the People of the “Useful Knowledge Series.”—The Educational Times.

The authors write about what they know, and they write with clearness and precision, and on the topics which they discuss they have spoken with that accuracy which comes from full knowledge.... The value of the book is enhanced by a glossary of technical terms, which will be of the utmost possible use to the beginner, and also of use to those who are somewhat advanced in their studies.—The Aberdeen Daily Free Press.

Vol. III.

AURENG-ZEBE, a Tragedy, by John Dryden, and Book II. of The Chace, a Poem, by William Somervile. Edited, with Biographical Memoirs and Notes, by Kenneth Deighton, Editor of Select Plays of Shakespeare. With a Portrait of Dryden, and a coloured reproduction of an Indian painting representing the Emperor Akbar deer-stalking. Cr. 8vo, pp. xiii + 222. Price 5s. nett.

An interesting reprint of Dryden’s tragedy.... If any one wishes to realise by an hour’s easy reading the vast gulf which separates our knowledge of India and our conceptions about India, at the close of this 19th century, from the views of our ancestors about India in the last quarter of the 17th century, we recommend this book to his notice. Mr. Deighton’s copious and suggestive footnotes will render the perusal both profitable and pleasant.—The Times.

The volume, like its predecessors, is admirably got up, and is enriched by a fine portrait of Dryden, and a capital reproduction of a highly curious and interesting Indian picture exhibiting the youthful Akbar at the chase.—The Scotsman.

Mr. Kenneth Deighton supplies a short biography of Dryden, and a just estimate of his dramatic power, taking due notice of the improvement in the later tone of a poet who was largely made by his surroundings, and had to write to please.... Ample notes, suited to the capacity of the Indian student, are incorporated in the volume.—The Glasgow Herald.

Vol. IV.

LETTERS FROM A MAHRATTA CAMP. By Thomas Duer Broughton. A new edition, with an Introduction by the Right Hon. Sir M. E. Grant Duff, G.C.S.I., F.R.S., Notes, Coloured and other Illustrations, a very full Index, and a Map. Crown 8vo, pp. xxxii + 274. Price 6s. nett.

Forthcoming volumes, in active preparation

LIFE IN ANCIENT INDIA. By Mrs. Speir. A new edition, revised and edited by Dr. Rost, C.I.E., Librarian, India Office.

RAMBLES AND RECOLLECTIONS OF AN INDIAN OFFICIAL. By Major-General Sir W. H. Sleeman, K.C.B. A new edition, edited by Vincent Arthur Smith, Indian Civil Service.

Other publications

STUDIES IN MOHAMMEDANISM, Historical and Doctrinal, with a chapter on Islam in England. By John J. Pool. With a Frontispiece and Index, pp. xvi + 420. Cr. 8vo, full cloth. Price 6s.

An interesting survey—all the more readable, perhaps, on account of its informal and even discursive arrangement—of Mussulman faith, practice, and history.... A conspicuous feature of Mr. Pool’s work is the account of the Moslem propaganda, which Mr. Quilliam, a Liverpool solicitor, is now prosecuting in that city.... It is tinged by no rancour or contempt, and exhibits a conscientious endeavour to appreciate the Mohammedan standpoint. As a “popular text-book,” dealing with some of the most picturesque aspects of Islam, it deserves more than ordinary attention.—The Times.

Mr. Pool ... has done good service in publishing this popular exposition of the doctrines and real character of Islam. So far as he errs at all, he errs on the side of too much leniency to Mohammedanism.... Mr. Pool’s too favourable account of the Moorish régime in Spain is the only part of his book that is open to serious question. The rest of the volume is both readable and instructive. He has evidently studied Islam with great care, and he states his own views with exemplary moderation.—The Spectator.

The chapter which gives information on this matter [Islam in Liverpool] is naturally the most interesting in the volume.... As to the other parts of Mr. Pool’s book it is difficult to speak too highly. His account of Mohammed and his system is fair and full, abounding in all kinds of illustrative anecdote.—The Glasgow Herald.

In the forty-one chapters of this volume the promise of the title is well kept, and every aspect of Islam faith and practice is discussed in a clear, comprehensive, and interesting manner.—The Liverpool Mercury.

These Studies in Mohammedanism are conspicuously fair. The writer is devotedly attached to Christianity, but he frankly and gladly acknowledges that Mohammed was a man of extraordinary powers and gifts, and that the religion which bears his name has done incalculable service to humanity in keeping the sublime truth of the unity of God before the eyes of the non-Christian world steeped in polytheism.—The Bradford Observer.

This volume will be found both interesting and useful to the general reader, as supplying in a convenient form a very good outline of the rise and development, with an account of the more salient features, of the Mohammedan religion. There are short chapters also on the Turks, Afghans, Corsairs, crusades, literature, architecture, slavery, etc., which convey much public information in a pleasant style.—The Scottish Geographical Magazine.

ANCIENT INDIA
ITS INVASION BY ALEXANDER THE GREAT

CATALOGUE OR ORDER SLIPS

[Entered at Stationers’ Hall]

It is hoped that these slips, which have been drawn up and printed strictly in accordance with the British Museum Catalogue rules, will prove a convenience to Booksellers, Librarians, Cataloguers, and Bookbuyers generally.

Their judicious acquisition and use may save many a hurried fruitless search for a piece of paper and a pencil, required at times to note down the title of a desirable book seen in the possession of another.

M’CRINDLE (J. W.). The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodôros, Plutarch, Justin, and other classical authors. With an Introduction containing a Life of Alexander, copious Notes, Illustrations, Maps, and Indices. Pp. xii + 432. Archibald Constable and Co., Westminster (London). 1893. 8vo.

M’CRINDLE (J. W.). The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodôros, Plutarch, Justin, and other classical authors. With an Introduction containing a Life of Alexander, copious Notes, Illustrations, Maps, and Indices. Pp. xii + 432. Archibald Constable and Co., Westminster (London). 1893. 8vo.

M’CRINDLE (J. W.). The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodôros, Plutarch, Justin, and other classical authors. With an Introduction containing a Life of Alexander, copious Notes, Illustrations, Maps, and Indices. Pp. xii + 432. Archibald Constable and Co., Westminster (London). 1893. 8vo.

M’CRINDLE (J. W.). The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodôros, Plutarch, Justin, and other classical authors. With an Introduction containing a Life of Alexander, copious Notes, Illustrations, Maps, and Indices. Pp. xii + 432. Archibald Constable and Co., Westminster (London). 1893. 8vo.

M’CRINDLE (J. W.). The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodôros, Plutarch, Justin, and other classical authors. With an Introduction containing a Life of Alexander, copious Notes, Illustrations, Maps, and Indices. Pp. xii + 432. Archibald Constable and Co., Westminster (London). 1893. 8vo.

ANCIENT INDIA
ITS INVASION BY ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Comment le Roy alixandre ploura de pitie quil ont de son cheual Buciffal qui se mouroit

ALEXANDER THE GREAT MOURNING THE DEATH OF BOUKEPHALOS

THE
INVASION OF INDIA
BY ALEXANDER THE GREAT
AS DESCRIBED BY
ARRIAN, Q. CURTIUS, DIODOROS
PLUTARCH AND JUSTIN

Being Translations of such portions of the Works of these and other
Classical Authors as describe Alexander’s Campaigns in Afghanistan
the Panjâb, Sindh, Gedrosia and Karmania

WITH AN INTRODUCTION CONTAINING A LIFE OF ALEXANDER
COPIOUS NOTES, ILLUSTRATIONS, MAPS AND INDICES
BY
J. W. M’CRINDLE, M.A., M.R.A.S., F.R.S.G.S.
LATE PRINCIPAL OF THE GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, PATNA, AND FELLOW OF
THE CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY, MEMBER OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

NEW EDITION
Bringing the Work up to Date

Westminster
ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE AND COMPANY
MDCCCXCVI

All rights reserved

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

Since this volume was written, three works have appeared which not only make important additions to our knowledge of Alexander’s campaigns in Turkestan, Lower Sindh, and Makran respectively, but which also serve to correct some current errors with regard to the identification of places which lay in the route of the great conqueror, as he passed through these obscure regions. As the works referred to have been written by scholarly men, who possess an intimate personal knowledge of the localities which they describe, the conclusions to which their investigations have conducted them may be accepted with confidence, and we propose to give here a brief summary of these conclusions so far as they concern our subject. The works are these: 1. Alexander des Grossen Feldzüge in Turkestan, von Franz Schwarz, München; 2. The Indus Delta: a Memoir chiefly on its Ancient History and Geography, by Major-General M. R. Haig, M.R.A.S., London; 3. A Lecture on “The Retreat of Alexander the Great from India,” by Colonel Holdich, R.E., as reported in the Calcutta Englishman.

We begin with Turkestan, by which is here meant the provinces called anciently Baktriana and Sogdiana. Their reduction, as will be seen from our Introduction ([pp. 39-44]), occupied the arms of Alexander for upwards of two years, from B.C. 329-327. The description of the campaigns by which this conquest was effected has hitherto proved a task of unusual difficulty, due partly to imperfect knowledge of the geography of the seat of war, and partly also to discrepancies in the accounts of these campaigns as given by Arrian and Curtius, who neither drew their facts from the same original sources nor relate them in quite the same order of sequence. It is fortunate therefore that Herr Schwarz, who for fifteen years resided in Turkestan, and had occasion or opportunity during that time to visit all its places of importance, sedulously applied himself to study the antiquities of the country, and was thus able ultimately to identify with certainty, almost all the places in which Alexander is reported, by his historians, to have shown himself. His work is accompanied by an excellent map, in which he has traced the line of the marches and the counter-marches of the Macedonian troops, while operating in the regions of the Oxus and the Jaxartes.

Alexander, in the early spring of 329 B.C., left Kabulistan, and having crossed the Indian Kaukasos, arrived at Drapsaka, and from thence continued his march to Aornos and Baktra. It has never been doubted that Baktra is now Balkh, but opinions have differed with regard to the other two places. Schwarz, on sufficient grounds, identifies Drapsaka with Kunduz, and Aornos with Tash-Kurgan, near which are situated the ruins of Khulm. Alexander, marching from Baktra through a frightful desert, gained the banks of the Oxus, which he crossed with his army in five days. The passage was effected, not from Kizil, as has been hitherto supposed, but from Kilif, higher up the stream—a place which Schwarz thinks was probably the city of the Branchidai, which, with its inhabitants, Alexander so remorselessly destroyed. From the Oxus the expedition advanced by way of Karshi and Jam to Marakanda, the famous city of Samarcand. Near Karshi, at the hill Kungur-tau, occurred the skirmish in which Alexander, on this march, received a wound. Marakanda was situated on the banks of the Polytimêtos, now the Zerafshan or Kohik, which flows westward till its waters are lost in the sands of the Khorasmian Desert. Alexander marched thence to the river Tanais—the Jaxartes or Syr-darya—which formed the eastern boundary of the Persian empire, and separated it from the Skythians. On the Persian side of this river Alexander founded a city, which he called by his own name, Alexandria. It is agreed on all hands that the site of this Alexandria was at or near where Khojent now stands. In this neighbourhood Alexander captured seven towns, which had shown signs of a purpose to revolt. The names of two of these have been recorded, Gaza and Kyropolis. The former Schwarz identifies with Nau, and the latter with Ura-tübe, a considerable city occupying a commanding position, strongly fortified, and distant from Khojent about 40 miles. It had been founded by Cyrus to serve as a bulwark against incursions of the Skythians. Alexander having quelled the attempted revolt of the Sogdians, crossed the Jaxartes, and inflicted a defeat on the Skythians, who had mustered in great force on their own side of the river. He pursued them as far as what Curtius calls the boundary-stones of Father Bacchus, which Schwarz has identified as a pass over Mogul-Tau, near Mursa-rabat, a post-station, 17 miles distant from Khojent.

On the heels of this victory tidings reached Alexander of the terrible defeat and slaughter of his Macedonian troops by Spitamenes in one of the islands of the Polytimêtos, and he immediately started for Marakanda, and reached it after a march of three days. As the distance from Khojent to Samarcand is 172 English miles, this march, made in broiling heat, and through a country without roads, must have tried to the very utmost the powers of endurance of the Macedonian soldiers, some of whom were hoplites, wearing their brazen helmets, carrying their shields, and clad in mail. Spitamenes made his escape into the desert, and Alexander could only sate his vengeance by ravaging with merciless severity the beautiful valley through which the river flowed. Schwarz tells us that he searched in vain to discover the island which was the scene of the disaster, and it probably no longer exists. It must, however, he thinks, have been situated in the neighbourhood of Ziadin and Kermineh. Alexander, pursuing his way down the river, passed Bokhara, the Sogdian capital, and advanced as far as Karakul, beyond which the river disappears in the sands. He then retired for the winter to Zariaspa. Zariaspa has been taken to be another name of Baktra, but Schwarz shows that such an opinion is altogether untenable, and identifies it, for reasons not to be gainsaid, with Charjui, a place some six or seven miles distant from where the Oxus is now spanned by the bridge of the Trans-Caspian Railway.

From Zariaspa Alexander returned to Marakanda, passing on his route by Karakul, Bokhara, Kermineh, and Kata-Kurgan. Koinos meanwhile had difficulty in holding his own against the indomitable Spitamenes, who had collected at Bagai a body of 3000 Skythian horsemen, with a view to invade Sogdiana. Bagai is now Ustuk, a Bokharan frontier fortress, 28 miles below Charjui, but on the opposite side of the Oxus. The hostile forces at length came to an engagement. Koinos was victorious, and Spitamenes, who fled into the desert with his Skythian horsemen, fell a victim to their treachery. They cut off his head, and sent it as a peace-offering to Alexander. After the reduction of Sogdiana, Alexander withdrew to Nautaka, where he spent the winter of 328-327 B.C. This place has been generally identified with Karshi, but Schwarz takes it to be Schaar, which lies 40 miles to the south of Samarcand.

Alexander left Nautaka early in spring, and his next great exploit was the capture of the famous Sogdian Rock, in the fortress of which Oxyartes had placed for safety the members of his family, including his daughter, the beautiful Roxana, whose charms so fascinated her captor, that he made her his queen, in spite of all the remonstrances of his friends. Curtius calls this stronghold the Rock of Arimazes. Some have identified it with the steep crags which line one side of the narrow gorge near Derbent, called the Iron Gate, which forms the only direct approach from West-Bokhara to Hissar. Schwarz, however, says that the Iron Gate, through which he has himself often passed, answers neither to the description of Arrian nor of Curtius, and his own identification of the Rock is with a mountain which ascends precipitously from a gorge similar to that of the Iron Gate, from which it is some five miles distant in a north-east direction. From the Rock the expedition marched eastward into the country of the Paraitakai, the mountainous district now known as Hissar. Here Alexander’s progress was arrested by another mountain fortress no less formidable than the Sogdian. It is called by Arrian the Rock of Chorienes, and by Curtius the Rock of Sysimithres. Its identification presents no difficulty, as in all Hissar there is but one place which answers the descriptions of it, namely, the narrow pass at the river Waksh, where the Suspension Bridge (Pul-i-Sangin) overspans it on the way from Hissar through Faizabad to Badshuan. This pass, Schwarz tells us, is the most remarkable place to which he came in the whole course of his travels. The fort having been surrendered through the persuasions of Oxyartes, the conqueror returned to Baktra, by way of Faizabad, Hissar, Karatag, and Yurchi, from which place he proceeded down the right bank of the Surkhan to Tormiz, and thence to the passage of the Oxus at Pata-gisar. On his return to Baktra, he there made his preparations for the invasion of India. We have here only further to notice that Alexander’s visit to Margiana, the city now so well known as Merv, could not have been made, as Curtius informs us, from Bokhara, which is 215 miles distant and separated from it by a terrible intervening desert, all but entirely destitute of wells, but was probably made from Sarakhs in the earlier part of the march from the Caspian Gates.

We turn now to Major-General Haig’s Memoir on the Indus-Delta country—a work of which about a fourth part directly concerns our subject. The sections which are of this nature discuss the following points:—1. The Geography and Hydrography of the Delta Country (chap. i.); 2. The Delta at the time of Alexander’s Expedition (chap. ii.); 3. The Delta according to later Greek Accounts (chap. iii.); 4. The Lonibare Mouth of the Indus (Append. Note A); 5. The general course of the Indus in Sindh in ancient times (Append. Note C); 6. Itineraries in the Las Bêlâ Country (Append. Note D); 7. The March to the Arabios (Append. Note E); 8. The voyage of Nearchos from Alexander’s Haven to the Mouth of the Arabios (Append. Note F).

Our author could scarcely have chosen for his subject one that is more beset with problems of aggravating perplexity. The Indus is notable even among Indian rivers for the frequency, and sometimes also for the suddenness, with which it changes its courses. As Colonel Holdich well observes, “The difficulty of restoring to the map of India an outline of the ancient geography of Sindh and the Indus Delta is one which has baffled many generations of scholars. The vagaries of the Indus, even within the limits of historic record, ... render this river, even before the Delta is reached, a hopeless feature for reference with regard to the position of places said once to have been near its bank. Within the limits of the Delta the confusion of hydrography becomes even more confounded.” In my note on Alexander in Sindh, which will be found at [page 352], I have noticed that the channel in which the Indus now flows lies much farther to the west than the channel in which the Macedonians found it flowing. This westing, as it is called, is due to the operation of the law, first discovered by K. E. von Baer, that the difference of the velocity of the earth’s rotation at the Equator and at the Poles causes eroding rivers in the Northern Hemisphere to attack their right bank more than the left, and to push their beds sideways—while in the Southern Hemisphere, this action is reversed. From the Memoir we learn how this law, and the other natural laws by which its action is modified, have affected the Indus. The river, we learn, pursues from the confluence of the Panjnad a very uniform S.W. direction for nearly 300 miles, till it reaches lat. 26° 56´, long. 67° 53´. At this point the river changes its general direction to one due south, and maintains this for about 60 miles, till it strikes, in lat. 26° 20´, long. 67° 55´, the eastern base of the Lakî Hills, just under the peak called Bhago Toro. Below this point the westing movement of centuries has now brought the stream to the extreme edge of the alluvial land, and into contact with the gravel slopes bordering the hill-country. As the gravel tracts project in a bow into the alluvial land of Lower Sindh, the river, unable to erode them, is forced to conform to their contour, and to run in a great curve for nearly 180 miles to Thata. This curve continues through the Delta to the sea, so that from Bhago Toro to the river-mouth the course of the Indus forms an arc of some 260 miles, of which the chord is about 160 miles, and the maximum depth nearly 50 miles. The general result is to give the course of the river in Sindh the form of the letter S. And, as its abandoned channels attest, such has been the form in which the river has run in past ages as it approached the sea. The lower curve of the S had a still bolder sweep eastward when the river ran far east of its present course, unchecked by rock or gravel bed, than it has now, when this part of the course has been shaped by a resistance which the current cannot overcome. This S-shaped course of the river in all ages should be remembered in considering questions of ancient local topography, such, for instance, as that of the site of Patala. It will then be seen to be impossible that the river can have run at the same period in its present course near Haidarâbâd, and, lower down through the Ghâro, or ancient Sindh Sâgara; also that if Patala was at Haidarâbâd, the western river-mouth of Alexander’s time must have lain, not at the western extremity of the sea-face of the Delta, but much to the east of that point. From these remarks (which I have abbreviated from the text), it will be seen that Haidarâbâd can no longer be taken to be the modern representative of Patala. Where then was the point at which, in Alexander’s time, the Indus bifurcated, and Patala was situated? Major-General Haig says that any precise identification of this site is hardly within the limits of possibility; but, for reasons for which his work itself must be consulted, he is of opinion that “the ancient capital of the Delta was most likely not far from a spot 35 miles south-east of Haidarâbâd”—a spot which happens to be 160 miles distant from each extremity of the Delta coast, as supposed to have existed in Alexander’s time. With regard to places which lie farther north than Patala, the views set forth in this volume do not differ from those of Major-General Haig. He is, however, of opinion that the kingdom of Mousikanos was of greater extent than is usually supposed, and must have embraced the district of Bahawulpur, which answers better to the description of that kingdom, as the most flourishing in all India, than the country around Alôr.

The Delta tract, as taken in the Memoir, extends from the sea northwards to the latitude of Haidarâbâd (25° 25´ N.), and is bounded on the east by the desert, the Purân or old course of the Indus, now dry, and by the Korî mouth, which is the Lonibare mouth of Ptolemy; on the west by the outer border of the plains, where the boundary runs S. by W. for 50 miles to near Thata, from which point it turns almost due west, and runs for 60 miles more to the sea, near Karâchî. This alluvial tract is everywhere furrowed by ancient channels, some continuous, both above and throughout the Delta, and others all but totally obliterated. Our author has a notice of each of the more important of these channels. Regarding the Ghâro, the western arm down which Alexander and his fleet sailed, he says that it runs nearly east and west along the southern border of the Kohistân (hill-country), that it is thus on the extreme edge of the Delta, and that it has a course of about 40 miles in length. Referring to the present channel of the Indus, he remarks:—

“This divides the lower Delta region into two unequal portions. Of these, the western, and much the smaller, portion is in the form of an equilateral triangle, having sides of about 64 miles in length, consisting of the river, the coast-line, and the southern edge of the Kohistân plains, and including an area of about 1700 square miles. This it will be convenient to call the ‘Western Delta,’ a name the more suitable that all the westward-flowing branches of the river have, or have once had, their mouths within the limits of the tract to which it will apply.”

A very interesting question is next discussed—that of the secular extension of the Delta seaward—and the conclusion arrived at, which is, however, conjectural, and below the estimate of Colonel Holdich, is that from Alexander’s time to 1869 A.D. the advance of the Delta seaward has been eight miles, or at the rate of rather more than six yards in a year, this being less than a fourth of the growth of the Nile Delta in a not much greater period of time.

We now proceed to show what new light we gain from the Memoir respecting the voyage of Nearchos from the naval station in the Indus to Alexander’s Haven, now Karâchî. We abridge the account which Arrian has given in his Indika of this part of the famous voyage:—

Weighing from the Naval Station, the fleet reached Stoura, about 100 stadia further down stream, and at the further distance of 30 stadia came to another channel where the sea was salt, at a place called Kaumana. A run of 20 stadia from Kaumana brought it to Koreatis, where it anchored. After weighing from this, a bar (ἕρμα) was encountered at the spot where the Indus discharges into the sea, and through this, where it was soft, a passage had to be cut at low water, for a space of five stadia. On this part of the coast, which was rugged, the waves dashed with great violence. The next place of anchorage was at Krokala, a sandy island, which was reached after a course of 150 stadia, that had followed the windings of the coast. Near this dwelt the Arabies, who had their name from the river Arabis, which separates their territory from that of the Oreitai. On weighing from Krokala, a hill called Eiros lay to the right, and to the left a low flat island, which stretched along the face of the coast, and made the intervening creek narrow. The ships having cleared this creek, reached a commodious harbour to which Nearchos gave the name of “Alexander’s Haven.” At the harbour’s mouth, two stadia off, lay an island named Bibakta, which, acting as a barrier against the sea, caused the existence of the harbour.

Our author thinks that some of the circumstances described in the above passage supply irresistible evidence that it was through the Ghâro that Nearchos sailed into the sea. If the obstruction at the mouth of the river was caused in part by rock, it is certain, he says, that that mouth cannot have been situated to the east of the Ghâro, for along the whole sea-border of the Delta, to a depth of several miles, no rock, not even a stone, is to be found. The description again of the coast adjoining the bar as rugged or rocky (τραχεῖα) can apply with great propriety to the plain west of the Ghâro, consisting, as it does, of a compact gravelly soil, frequently broken by outcropping rock, while the description would be utterly out of place if applied to the low mud-banks of the actual Delta coast. And further, the statement that the fleet, after leaving the river, ran a winding course, shows very pointedly that the Ghâro must have been the mouth by which the fleet reached the sea, since, if it had issued from any of the mouths east of the Ghâro, there would have been no windings to follow, the coast of the Delta being singularly straight and regular. The fleet probably entered the sea by the creek of the Ghâro known as the Kudro, not far from the present mouth of which there is a small port named the Wâghûdar, accessible to riverboats of light draught. Sir A. Burnes, however, who visited the Delta in 1831, took the Pitî channel to have been that by which Nearchos gained the sea. He had seen in that channel what he took to be a rock, and concluded that it was the obstacle which Nearchos had encountered. It was not a rock, however, but probably an oyster-bank, for when search was made for it afterwards during a survey it was no longer to be found.

The island of Krokala, which General Cunningham erroneously identified with the island of Kîâmârî, which lies in front of Karâchî, no longer exists as an island, but forms part of the mainland. It lay at the mouth of the Gisri Creek, by which the Malîr river pours its waters into the sea. The headland which Arrian calls Eiros is to be identified with the eminence called “Clifton,” the eastern headland of Karâchî Bay, the “narrow creek” which the fleet entered on leaving Krokala, is Chinî Creek, which leads into Karâchî Bay and harbour. Kîâmârî thus corresponds with the “low, flat island” of the Greek narrative, while Manora (mistaken by Cunningham for Eiros), exactly corresponds with Bibakta.

We must now briefly notice what is said regarding the eastern portion of the Delta. Here the most important of all the forsaken channels of the Indus is the Purân, which can still be clearly traced from two different starting-points in Central Sindh, one 24, the other 36 miles north-east of Haidarâbâd. The two head channels run south-east for about 50 miles, and unite at a spot 45 miles east by south from Haidarâbâd. The single channel has then a course of over 140 miles to the head of the Korî Creek, the last 50 miles being through the Ran of Kuchchha. The eastern arm of the Indus, which Alexander in person explored, was probably some channel running into the Purân not far above the point where it enters the Ran. On reaching the sea by this eastern branch, Alexander, as Arrian informs us, landed, and with some cavalry proceeded three marches along the coast. This statement the Memoir declares to be a fabrication, since such a march would be an utter impossibility. At the same time, the notion of wells being dug in the locality is scouted as an absurdity.

The Memoir further indicates the route by which Alexander, after starting from Patala to return homewards, reached the Arabis or Arabios—now the Purâli river, which flows through Lus Bela, and discharges into Sonmiyâni Bay. The eastern frontier of the Arabios lay near Krokala, and was very probably formed by the river called the Malîr. Alexander, according to Curtius, reached this frontier in a nine-days’ march from Patala, and the western frontier, which was about 65 miles distant from the other, in five days more. Our author, assuming that Alexander would not have marched his army across the comparatively waterless plain of the Kohistân, but would keep, if possible, within easy reach of the river or one of its branches, thinks it obvious that the earlier part of the route would follow the branch which ran westward—the branch, namely, of which the Kalrî and Ghâro formed the lower portion. From the position which he assigns to Patala, the distance traversed in the nine-days’ march would be 117 miles, while the point on the Malîr where Alexander encamped would be, he thinks, 7 or 8 miles east by north from Karâchî cantonments. The distance between the Malîr and the Purâli, it must be pointed out, is much greater now than it was in Alexander’s time, for, like the Indus, the Purâli has shifted its course far westward. The coast-line, moreover, at Sonmiyâni has advanced 20 miles, if not more, since then. Our author, therefore, placing the mouth of the river rather to the north of the latitude of Liâri, suggests that the point where the army reached the Arabios was about 10 miles east by north from Liâri, and 20 miles north or north by east from Sonmiyâni.

The last Appendix in the Memoir is devoted to a review of the narrative of the voyage by which Nearchos in six days reached the mouth of the Arabios or Purâli from Alexander’s Haven. It states in the outset that the discovery of the great advance of the coast about the head of Sonmiyâni Bay serves to explain some difficulties in the account of the voyage which have hitherto defied solution. We here abridge that account:—

The fleet, on weighing from the haven, ran a course of 60 stadia, and anchored under shelter of a desert island called Domai. Next day, with a run of 300 stadia, it reached Saranga, and on the following day anchored at a desert place called Sakala. Another run of 300 stadia brought it on the morrow to Morontobara or Women’s Haven. This haven had a narrow entrance, but was deep, capacious, and well-sheltered. The fleet, before gaining the entrance, had passed through between two islets, which lay so close to each other that the oars grazed the rocks on each side. On leaving this harbour next day it had on the left a tree-covered island 70 stadia long which sheltered it from the violence of the sea. As the channel, however, which separated the island from the mainland was narrow, and shoal with ebb-tide, the passage through it was difficult and tedious, and it was not till near the dawn of the following day that the fleet succeeded in clearing it. A course of 120 stadia brought it to a good harbour at the mouth of the Arabios. Not far from this harbour lay an island described as being high and bare.

The island of Domai Colonel Holdich and others would identify with Manora. Manora, however, Haig points out, is even now 4 to 5 miles off from the nearest mainland, and must have been further in Alexander’s time. He would, therefore, place Domai rather more than 4 miles due west of the town of Karâchî, or perhaps further north. The fleet, in its course to Saranga, must have rounded Cape Monze or Râs Muâri, but this projection is not mentioned by Arrian. The position of Saranga, to judge from the recorded length of the run, must have been near the mouth of the Hub river, which is 26 miles distant from the position assigned to Domai. The Hub mouth has been silted up, and this led, last century, to its port being abandoned. Our author points out that if Κ were substituted for Σ in Saranga, we would then have in Karanga a very fair representation of Kharok, the name of the Hub port. However this may be, he adds, there can be no doubt that the Saranga of Nearchos was either at the Hub mouth or a few miles further north.

He then corrects a mistake into which Dr. Vincent and myself had both of us fallen in our respective translations of the record of the next part of the voyage—that from Saranga to Sakala, and thence to Morontobara. Our versions represented the two rocky islets, between which the fleet passed instead of taking a circuitous course out in the open sea, as being in the neighbourhood of Sakala instead of that of Morontobara. Sakala, Haig thinks, may be placed a little east of Bidok Lak—a place 24 miles distant from Saranga, if Saranga be taken to lie a few miles north of the Hub mouth. Between these two places the fleet must have passed the island of Gadâni, which is now a part of the mainland, and was probably the Kodanê of Ptolemy.

With regard to Morontobara, our author agrees with Colonel Holdich in thinking that it is now represented by the great depression known as “Sirondha,” which, though usually a fresh-water lake, is occasionally quite dry. This, as the Colonel states, was at no very distant date a commodious harbour or arm of the sea, which has extended north in historic times at least as far as Liâri, and possibly further. He adds that south-west of Liâri some of the land formation is probably very ancient, and that westward along the Makran coast there are many indications of local changes. The distance from Bidok Lak to the depression is estimated at about 27 miles, which represents very fairly the 300 stadia of the narrative. Liâri is now about 20 miles distant from the sea.

On leaving the Arabios the fleet, coasting the shores of the Oreitai, arrived at Kôkala, a place near Râs Kachar, where Nearchos landed, and was joined by the division of the army under Leonnatus, from whom he received a supply of provisions for his ships. From Kôkala, a course of 500 stadia brought him to the estuary of the Tomêros, or, as it is now called, the river Hingol. All connection between the fleet and the army was thenceforth lost until the district of Harmozia, in Karmania, was reached. The coast of the Oreitai extended westward from the Arabios to the great rocky headland of Malan, which still bears the name given to it in Arrian, Malana—a distance of fully 100 miles. The desolate shores of the Ichthyophagi succeeded, and inland lay the vast sandy wastes of Gedrosia. Between Cape Malan and the mouth of the Anamis river in Harmozia, from which Nearchos, with a small retinue, proceeded inland to meet Alexander, no fewer than twenty-one names of places at which the fleet touched are recorded in the narrative of the voyage. Most of these have been identified by Major Mockler, the political agent of Makrân. We can refer to only one or two of the more notable. From Cape Malan the fleet proceeded to Bagisâra, which, Colonel Holdich tells us, is likely enough the Dimizaar or eastern bay of the Urmara headland. The Pasiris, who are mentioned as a people of this neighbourhood, have left frequent traces of their existence along the coast. At Kalama, now Khor Khalmat, which was reached on the second day from Urmara, there can be traced a very considerable extension of the land seawards, which would have completely altered the course of the fleet from the present coasting tract. The island of Karbine, which was distant 100 stadia from Kalama, cannot, our author points out, be the island of Astola, but is probably a headland now connected with the mainland by a low sandy waste. Astola, however, he takes to be the island sacred to the sun, which Arrian calls Nosala, and places at a distance of 100 stadia from the mainland. The nearest land to it is Ras Jaddi or Koh Zarên, in the neighbourhood of which was Mosarna, where Nearchos took on board a pilot, by whom thenceforth the course of the fleet was directed. The next place of importance was Barna, called by others Bâdara, and this Mockler identifies with Gwâdar. The following identifications succeed:—Dendrobosa with the west point of Gwâdar headland, Kôphas with Pishikân Bay, Bagia with Cape Brês, Tâlmena with a harbour in Chahbar Bay, Kanate with Karatee, Dagasira with Jakeisar, near the mouth of the Jageen river, Bâdis with Kôh Mubârak, and the mouth of the Anamis river with a point north by east from the island of Ormus. The distances which Arrian records as run by the fleet from day to day are generally excessive, especially after it had left the mouth of the Arabios.

We must now resume consideration of the movements of Alexander himself. When we left him he had reached the banks of the Arabios, at a point distant some twenty miles from Sonmiyâni, or perhaps even higher up the river. On crossing the stream he turned to his left towards the sea, and with a picked force made a sudden descent on the Oreitai. After a night’s march he came to a well-inhabited district, defeated the Oreitai, and penetrated to their capital—a mere village called Rambakia, which Colonel Holdich places at or near Khairkot. The Oreitai themselves are, in his opinion, represented by the Lumri tribes of Las Bela, who are of Rajput descent. From Rambakia Alexander proceeded with a part of his troops to force the narrow pass which the Gadrôsoi and the Oreitai had conjointly seized with the design of stopping his progress. This defile was most probably the turning pass at the northern end of the Hala range. The Gadrôsoi seem to owe their name to the Gadurs, one of the Lumri clans, from which, however, they hold themselves somewhat distinct. Alexander, after clearing the pass, pushed on through a desert country into the territory of the Gadrôsoi, and drew down to the coast. He must then, says our author, have followed the valley of the Phur to the coast, and pushed on along the track of the modern telegraph line till he reached the neighbourhood of the Hingol river, where he halted to collect supplies for the fleet. On this part of the route were the tamarisk trees which yielded myrrh, the mangrove swamps, the euphorbias with prickly shoots, and the roots of spikenard.

Beyond this he could no longer pursue his march along the coast in order to keep in touch with the fleet. The huge barrier of the Malan range, which abutted direct on the sea, stopped his way. There was no goat track in those days, such as, after infinite difficulty, helped the telegraph line over. He was consequently forced into the interior. Taking the only route that was possible, he followed up the Hingol till he could turn the Malan by the first available pass westward. Nothing here, we are told, has altered since his days. The magnificent peaks and mountains which surround the sacred shrine of Hinglaz are “everlasting hills,” and it was through these that he proceeded to make his way. The windings of the Hingol river he followed for 40 miles up to its junction with the Parkan. The bed of this stream leads westward from the Hingol, and skirts the north of the Taloi range. Alexander had thus for the first time a chance of turning the Malan block, and directing his march westward to the sea. He therefore pushed his way through this low valley, which was flanked by the Taloi hills, that rose on his left to a height of 2000 feet. All the region at their base was a wilderness of sandy hillocks and scanty grass-covered waste, which could afford his troops no supplies and no shelter from the fierce autumn heat. All the miseries of his retreat, which are so graphically depicted by his historians, were concentrated into the distance between the Hingol and the point where he regained the coast. The Parkan route should have led him to the river Basol, but having lost his way, he must have emerged near the harbour of Pasnî, almost on the line of the present telegraph. The distance from the Hingol to Pasnî our author estimates at about 200 miles; but in Curzon’s well-known map of Persia it appears as if only 150.

From Pasnî Alexander marched for seven days along the coast till he reached the well-known highway to Karmania. He could only leave the coast near the Dasht river and strike into the valley of the Bahu, which would lead him to Bampur, the capital of Gadrosia. This part of the march probably occupied nearly a month. It has been doubted whether Bampur was, in Alexander’s time, the capital of Gadrosia, rather than the place on the edge of the Kirman desert, called indifferently Fahraj, Purag, and Pura, where there are extensive ruins of a very ancient date. Colonel Holdich, however, adduces arguments which suffice to set aside the claims advanced in favour of Fahraj. Bampur is as old as Fahraj, and has in its neighbourhood the site of a city still older, and now called Pura and Purag. Besides, in order to reach Fahraj, Alexander must have passed Bampur, since there is no other way consistent with Arrian’s account. With regard to the route pursued by Krateros with the heavy transport and invalids, our author points out that it was probably by the Mulla (and not the Bolan) pass to Kelat and Quetta. Thence he must have taken the Kandahar route to the Helmund, and followed that river down to the fertile plains of lower Seistan, whence he crossed the Kirman desert by a well-known modern caravan route and joined Alexander at or near Kirman.

Since the publication of his lecture, of which we have thus summarised the contents, Colonel Holdich has contributed to the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society (January 1896), an article on “The Origin of the Kafîr of the Hindu-Kush,” which contains some very interesting notices regarding Alexander as he fought his way from the Hindu-Kush to the banks of the Indus. The route by which the conqueror himself advanced with one division of his army, while the other division, which was more heavily armed, advanced by the Khaibar Pass, is thus described by our author:—

“The recognised road to India from Central Asia was that which passed through the plains of Kabul, by the Kabul river, into Laghmân or Lamghân, and thence by the open Dasht-i-Gumbaz into the lower Kunar. From the Kunar valley this road, even to the time of Baber’s invasion of India (early in the sixteenth century), crossed the comparatively low intervening range into Bajour; thence to the valley of the Panj-Kora and Swat, and out into India by the same passes with which we have now (after nearly 400 years) found it convenient to enter the same district.”

A reference to our notes, B. C. D. E., in the [Appendix], will show that this view of the route is that which we ourselves had adopted. His views with regard to the position of Massaga, Aornos, and Embolima are also coincident with those at which we had arrived. Dyrta he takes to have been the place now known as Dir. That opinion was held by such great authorities as Court and Lassen, but we have pointed out an objection to it in [p. 76, n. 3]. To Nysa, which, as will be seen by a reference to our long note [pp. 338-340], we have identified with the Nagara or Dionysopolis of Ptolemy (B. vii., 43), thus placing it at a distance of four or five miles west of Jalâlâbâd and near the Kabul river, Colonel Holdich assigns a different locality.

“The Nysaeans,” he says, “whose city Alexander spared, were the descendants of those conquerors, who, coming from the west, were probably deterred by the heat of the plains of India from carrying their conquests south of the Punjab. They settled on the cool and well-watered slopes of those mountains which crown the uplands of Swat and Bajour, where they cultivated the vine for generations.... It seems possible that they may have extended their habitat as far eastward as the upper Swat valley and the mountain region of the Indus, and at one time may have occupied the site of the ancient capital of the Assakenoi, Massaga, which there is reason to suppose stood in about the position now occupied by the town of Manglaor.”

The hill in the neighbourhood of Nysa called Mount Mêros, which was clad with ivy, laurel, and vine-trees, he identifies with the Koh-i-Mor or Mountain of Mor, and gives this account of it:—

“On the right bank of the Panj-Kora river (the ancient Ghoura), nearly opposite to its junction with the river of Swat (Suastos), is a very conspicuous mountain, whose three-headed outline can be distinctly seen from the Peshawar cantonment, known as the Koh-i-Mor or Mountain of Mor. On the southern slopes of this mountain, near the foot of it, is a large scattered village called Nuzar or Nasar. The sides of the mountain spurs are clothed with the same forest and jungle that is common to the mountains of Kafiristan, and to the hills intervening between Kafiristan and the Koh-i-Mor. Amid this jungle are to be found the wild vine and ivy.”

In [note B.]—Nikaia—page 332, some remarks will be found regarding the Kafîrs. Colonel Holdich describes them similarly, but upholds the view, rejected by Elphinstone, of their Greek origin. The best known of them, he points out, are the Kamdesh Kafîrs from the lower valley of the Bashgol, a large affluent of the Kunar river, which it joins from the north-west, some forty miles below Chitral. He then continues:—

“In the case of the Kamdesh Kafîr, at least, the tradition of Greek or Pelasgic origin seems likely to be verified in a very remarkable way. Scientific inquiry has been converging on him from several directions, and it seems possible that the ethnographical riddle connected with his existence will be solved ere long. In appearance he is of a distinct Aryan type, with low forehead, and prominent aquiline features, entirely free from Tartar or Mongolian traits; his eyes, though generally dark, are frequently of a light grey colour; his complexion is fair enough to pass for Southern European; his figure is always slight, but indicating marvellous activity and strength; and the modelling of his limbs would furnish study for a sculptor.”

Colonel Holdich subsequently calls our attention to certain strange inscriptions found in the valley of the Indus east of Swat, and engraved, most of them, on stone slabs built into towers which are now in ruins. These inscriptions, on being subjected to a congress of Orientalists, were pronounced to be in an unknown tongue. They may possibly, he adds, be found to be vastly more ancient than the towers they adorned, it being, at any rate, a notable fact about them that some of them “recall a Greek alphabet of archaic type.” He concludes his observations regarding the Kafîrs in these terms: “I cannot but believe them to be the modern representatives of that very ancient western race, the Nysaeans—so ancient that the historians of Alexander refer to their origin as mythical.”

I may, in conclusion, advert, in a word, to an article of great ability, contributed to the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for October 1894, in which the writer endeavours to show that Alexander reached the Indus by a widely different route from that which is indicated in our pages, although it is also the route which, in its main outlines, has been determined by the best authorities—men of high military rank, personally acquainted with the country, and scholars of the greatest eminence. As the selection of the route advocated was mainly based on the opinion which the writer had formed as to the point whereat Alexander had effected his passage of the Indus, it will suffice to refute his theory if we prove that his opinion is altogether untenable. In his view, the Indus was crossed, not at Attock, but much higher up stream, at a point between Amb and the mouth of the Barhind river, the Parenos of the Greeks. Now, while the passage at Attock is that which, from time immemorial, has been used as the easiest means of access into India from the west, the passage higher up is much more difficult and dangerous, for though the river is not there so wide, its current is much more impetuous, while the banks are, at the same time, much steeper. Had Alexander notwithstanding attempted to cross at that point, he would have had to encounter a desperate resistance on the part of his determined enemy Abisares, in whose dominions he would have found himself on reaching the eastern bank. He made, however, no such foolhardy attempt either here or afterwards at the Hydaspes. We find, as a matter of fact, that when he made the passage he met with no opposition, but was most hospitably received by his vassal, the King of Taxila, in whose dominions Attock was situated. The writer, it would appear, has been led to his erroneous assumption by applying to the Indus specially the remark in Strabo (quoted at page 64, note 4) regarding the rivers of Northern Afghânistân generally, that Alexander wished to cross them as near their sources as possible. The remark, we may be certain, had no reference to the Indus at all, for Alexander could not but have learned from Taxiles, who had joined him at Nikaia before the two divisions of his army separated, where the Indus could best be crossed. Taxiles, moreover, accompanied the division which advanced towards the Indus by the Khaibar Pass, with instructions to make all the necessary preparations for the passage of the whole army. Could such instructions have been given if the point where the passage was to be made had still to be discovered? A reference to Baber’s Memoirs will show with what ease that other great conqueror transported his army into India by using the Attock passage.

A sixth volume, containing descriptions of India by Strabo and Pliny, together with incidental notices of India by other classical writers, is in course of preparation, and will complete the series.

PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION

En inventant l’histoire, la Grèce inventa le jugement du monde, et, dans ce jugement, l’arrêt de la Grèce fut sans appel. A celui dont la Grèce n’a pas parlé, l’oubli, c’est-à-dire le néant. A celui dont la Grèce se souvient, la gloire, c’est-à-dire la vie.—Discours de M. Ernest Renan du 5 Mai 1892.

This work is the fifth of a series which may be entitled Ancient India as described by the Classical Writers, since it was projected to supply annotated translations of all the accounts of India which have descended to us from classical antiquity. The volumes which have already appeared contain the fragments of the Indika of Ktêsias the Knidian, and of the Indika of Megasthenês, the Indika of Arrian, the Periplous of the Erythraian Sea by an unknown author, and Ptolemy’s Geography of India and the other Countries of Eastern Asia. A sixth work, containing translations of the chapters in Strabo’s Geography which describe India and Ariana, is in preparation, and will complete the series. I cannot at present say whether this work will appear as a separate publication, or will be included in a volume containing new and revised editions of the three Indikas mentioned above, which are now nearly out of print, as are also the other two works of the series.

In the present work I have translated and annotated all the earliest and most authentic records which have been preserved of the Macedonian invasion of India under Alexander the Great. The notes do not touch on points either of grammar or of textual criticism, but are mainly designed to illustrate the statements advanced in the narratives. When short, they accompany the text as footnotes, and when of such a length as would too much encumber the pages, they have been placed together in an appendix by themselves. Such notes again as refer to persons have been placed, whether short or long, in a second appendix, which I have designated a Biographical Appendix.

In preparing the translations and notes I have consulted a great many works, of which the following may be specified as those which I found most useful:—

Droysen’s Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen.

Williams’s Life of Alexander.

Sainte-Croix’s Examen Critique des Anciens Historiens d’Alexandre le Grand.

C. Müller’s collection of the remaining fragments of the Historians of Alexander the Great.

Thirlwall’s History of Greece, vols. vi. and vii.

Grote’s History of Greece, vol. xii.

Duncker’s History of Antiquity, vol. iv., which treats of India exclusively.

Talboys Wheeler’s History of India.

Le Clerc’s Criticism upon Curtius, prefixed to Rooke’s Translation of Arrian’s Anabasis.

Lassen’s Indische Alterthumskunde.

General Sir A. Cunningham’s Geography of Ancient India.

V. de Saint-Martin’s Étude sur la Géographie Grecque et Latine de l’Inde, and his Mémoire Analytique sur la carte de l’Asie Centrale et de l’Inde.

Rennell’s Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan.

Bunbury’s History of Ancient Geography.

Abbott’s Gradus ad Aornon.

Journal Asiatique. Serie VIII.

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. New Series.

Mahaffy’s Alexander’s Empire and his Greek Life and Thought from the Age of Alexander to the Roman Conquest.

Professor Freeman’s Essay on Alexander the Great.

General Chesney’s Lecture on the Indian Campaign of Alexander.

Wesseling’s Latin Translation of Diodôros.

Translations of Curtius by Digby, Pratt, and Vaugelas respectively.

The Notes to the Elzevir edition of Curtius.

Chinnock’s Translation of Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander, and Notes thereto.

Chaussard’s Translation of Arrian into French.

Moberly’s Alexander the Great in the Punjaub, from Arrian. Book V.

Burton’s Sindh.

Weber’s Die Griechen in Indien.

Dr. Bellew’s Ethnography of Afghanistan.

Sir W. W. Hunter’s and Professor Max Müller’s Works on India.

The Translations are strictly literal, but though such, will, I trust, be found to give, without crudeness of diction, a faithful reflex not only of the sense, but also of the spirit, force, fluency, and perspicuity of the original compositions. I have at all events spared no pains to combine in the translations the two merits of being at once literal and idiomatic in expression.

In translating Arrian I adopted the text of Sintenis (2nd edition, Berlin, 1863); and with regard to Curtius, I found the work entitled Alexander in India, edited by Heitland and Raven, very serviceable, containing, as it does, exactly that portion of Curtius which it was my purpose to translate. Both the works referred to contain valuable prolegomena and notes, to which I must here acknowledge my obligations.

The Introduction consists of two parts. In the first, I have pointed out the sources whence our knowledge of the history of Alexander has been derived, and discussed their title to credibility; while in the second, I have sketched Alexander’s career, and added a very brief summary of the events that followed his death till the wars for the division of his empire were finally composed.

In the transcription of Greek proper names I have followed as hitherto the method introduced by Grote, which scholars have now generally adopted. A vindication of the method which, to my thinking, is unanswerable, has appeared in the preface to Professor Freeman’s History of Sicily, a work which the author unfortunately has not lived to complete.

The most noticeable change resulting from this method is the substitution of K for C in the spelling of Greek names. This should be borne in mind by those who may have occasion to consult either the Biographical Appendix or the General Index. I may further note that in transcribing Sanskrit or other Indian names I have in all cases used the circumflex to distinguish the long â, which is sounded as a in fall, from the short a, which is sounded as u in dumb. In Sanskrit and its derivative dialects this short vowel (अ) is never written unless it begin a word, for it is supposed to be inherent in every consonant. The letter ś with the acute accent represents the palatal sibilant (श), which is sounded like sh.

Two maps accompany the work, the larger of which shows the entire line of the route which Alexander followed in the course of his Asiatic expedition, while the smaller shows more distinctly that part of his route which lay through the northern parts of Afghânistân and the Country of the Five Rivers. For both I consulted the latest and most authoritative maps, both British and German, in which these routes have been laid down, and I found them in pretty close agreement, except with regard to that part of the route which is traced in the smaller map. Here I have generally followed the sketch map of the Panjâb which is given in General Cunningham’s Ancient Geography of India, but have ventured to differ from him with regard to the position of the Rock Aornos, of Alexander’s bridge over the Indus, of Sangala, and of the Oxydrakai, whom I have placed, as in Sir E. H. Bunbury’s map, to the south of the Malloi.

The frontispiece to the volume, reproduced from a fifteenth-century French MS. of the Life of Alexander, may, it is hoped, appeal to many as a quaint rendering of a widely “popular” incident.

I cannot conclude without expressing my great obligations to Mr. Archibald Constable, by whose firm this work is published, for all the trouble he has taken in connection with its passage through the press, and especially with the preparation of the illustrations. I have also to thank Dr. Burgess for supplying the photograph from which the Aśôka inscription on [page 373] has been reproduced, and for sundry valuable suggestions besides.

J. W. M’C.

9 Westhall Gardens,
Edinburgh, 1892.

INTRODUCTION

“Of the life of Alexander we have five consecutive narratives, besides numerous allusions and fragments scattered up and down various Greek and Latin writers.... Unluckily, among all the five there is not a single contemporary chronicler.... The value of all, it is clear, must depend upon the faithfulness with which they represent the earlier writings which they had before them, and upon the amount of critical power which they may have brought to bear upon their examination. Unluckily again, among all the five, one only has any claim to the name of a critic. Arrian alone seems to have had at once the will and the power to exercise a discreet judgment upon the statements of those who went before him. Diodôros we believe to be perfectly honest, but he is, at the same time, impenetrably stupid. Plutarch, as he himself tells us, does not write history, but lives; his object is rather to gather anecdotes, to point a moral, than to give a formal narrative of political and military events. Justin is a feeble and careless epitomizer. Quintus Curtius is, in our eyes, little better than a romance writer; he is the only one of the five whom we should suspect of any wilful departure from the truth.”—From Historical Essays, by Professor Freeman, 2d series, third edition, pp. 183, 184.

INTRODUCTION

The invasion of India by Alexander the Great, like the first voyage of Columbus to America, was the means of opening up a new world to the knowledge of mankind. Before the great conqueror visited that remote and sequestered country, which was then thought to lie at the utmost ends of the earth, nothing was known regarding it beyond a few vague particulars mentioned by Herodotos, and such grains of truth as could be sifted from the mass of fictions which formed the staple of the treatise on India written by Ktêsias of Knidos. A comparison of this work with the Indika of Megasthenes, which was written after the invasion, will show how entirely all real knowledge of the country was due to that event. It may even, we think, be asserted that had that invasion not taken place, the knowledge of India among the nations of the West would not have advanced much beyond where Ktêsias left it, until the maritime passage to the East by the Cape of Good Hope had been discovered.

It was early in the year 326 B.C. that Alexander, fresh from the conquest of the fierce tribes of northern Afghânistân, led his army over into the plains of India by a bridge of boats, with which he had spanned the Indus a little below its junction with the Kabul river.[1] He remained in the country not more than twenty months all told, yet in that brief space he reduced the Panjâb as far as the Satlej, and the whole of the spacious valley of the lower Indus, downwards to the ocean itself. He would even have penetrated to the Ganges had his army consented to follow him, and, in the opinion of Sandrokottos, would have succeeded in adding to his empire the vast regions through which that river flows. The rapidity with which he achieved his actual conquests in the country appears all the more surprising when we take into account that at every stage of his advance he encountered a most determined resistance. The people were not only of a most martial temperament, but were at the same time inured to arms; and had they but been united and led by such a capable commander as Pôros, the Macedonian army was doomed to utter destruction. Alexander, with all his matchless strategy, could not have averted such a catastrophe; for what is the record of his Indian campaigns? We find that the toughest of all his battles was that which he fought on the banks of the Hydaspes against Pôros; that he had hot work in overcoming the resistance of the Kathaians before the walls of Sangala; that he was wounded near to death in his assault upon the Mallian stronghold; and that in the valley of the Indus he could only overpower the opposition instigated by the Brahmans by means of wholesale massacres and executions. It may hence be safely inferred that if Alexander had found India united in arms to withstand his aggression, the star of his good fortune would have culminated with his passage of the Indus. But he found, on the contrary, the political condition of the country when he entered it eminently favourable to his designs. The regions of the Indus and its great tributary streams were then divided into separate states—some under kingly and others under republican governments, but all alike prevented by their mutual jealousies and feuds from acting in concert against a common enemy, and therefore all the more easy to overcome. Alexander, in pursuance of his usual policy, sought to secure the permanence of his Indian conquests by founding cities,[2] which he strongly fortified and garrisoned with large bodies of troops to overawe and hold in subjection the tribes in their neighbourhood. The system of government also which he established was the same as that which he had provided for his other subject provinces, the civil administration being entrusted to native chiefs, while the executive and military authority was wielded by Macedonian officers.

The Asiatic nations in general submissively acquiesced in the new order of things, and after a time found no reason to regret the old order which it had superseded. Under their Hellenic masters they enjoyed a greater measure of freedom than they had ever before known; commerce was promoted, wealth increased, the administration of justice improved, and altogether they reached a higher level of culture, both intellectual and moral, than they could possibly have attained under a continuance of Persian supremacy.

India did not participate to any great extent in these advantages. Her people were too proud and warlike to brook long the burden and reproach of foreign thraldom, and within a few years after the Conqueror’s death they completely freed themselves from the yoke he imposed, and were thereafter ruled by their native princes. The Greek occupation having thus proved so transient, had little more effect in shaping the future course of the national destinies than a casual raid of Scottish borderers into Cumberland in the old days could have had in shaping the general course of English history.[3]

By this disruption of her relations with the rest of Alexander’s empire, India fell back into her former isolation from all the outside world, and for more than fifteen or sixteen centuries afterwards the western nations knew as little of her internal condition as they knew till lately of the interior of the Dark Continent. The invasion was, however, by no means fruitless of some good results. As has been already indicated, it drew aside the veil which had till then shrouded India from the observation of the rest of the world, and it thus widened the horizon of knowledge. It is fortunate that what then became known of India was not left for its preservation at the mercy of mere oral tradition, but was committed to the safer custody of writing. Not a few of Alexander’s officers and companions were men of high attainments in literature and science, and some of their number composed memoirs of his wars, in the course of which they recorded their impressions of India and the races by which they found it inhabited.[4] These reports, even in the fragmentary state in which they have come down to us, have proved of inestimable value to scholars engaged in the investigation of Indian antiquity—a task which the sad deficiency of Sanskrit literature in history and chronology has rendered one of no ordinary difficulty. Strabo, we must however note, stigmatized the authors referred to as being in general a set of liars, of whom only a few managed now and then to stammer out some words of truth. This sweeping censure is, however, a most egregious calumny. It may indeed be admitted that their descriptions are not uniformly free from error or exaggeration, and may even be tainted by some intermixture of fiction, but on the whole they wrote in good faith—a fact which even Strabo himself practically admits by frequently citing their authority for his statements. If one or two of them are to some extent liable to the censure, it must be remembered that Ptolemy, Aristoboulos, Nearchos, Megasthenes, and others of them, are writers of unimpeachable veracity.

It is to be regretted that the works in which these writers recorded their Indian experiences have all, without exception, perished. We know, however, the main substance of their contents from the histories of Alexander, written several centuries after his death by the authors we have here translated, as well as from Strabo, Pliny, Ailianos, Athênaios, Orosius, and others.

The following is a list of the writers on India who visited the country either with Alexander, or not many years after his death, or who were at least his contemporaries:—

1. Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, who became king of Egypt.

2. Aristoboulos of Potidaia, or, as it was called afterwards, Kassandreia.

3. Nearchos, a Kretan by birth, but settled at Amphipolis, admiral of the fleet.

4. Onêsikritos of Astypalaia, or, as some say, of Aegina, pilot of the fleet.

5. Eumenês of Kardia, Alexander’s secretary, who kept the Ephemerides or Court Journal. His countryman, Hieronymos, in his work on Alexander’s successors, made a few references to the campaigns of the Conqueror.

6. Chares of Mitylene, wrote anecdotes of Alexander’s private life.

7. Kallisthenes of Olynthos, Aristotle’s kinsman, author of an account of Alexander’s Asiatic expedition.

8. Kleitarchos (Clitarchus), son of Deinôn of Rhodes, author of a life of Alexander.

9. Androsthenes of Thasos, a naval officer, author of a Paraplous.

10. Polykleitos of Larissa, author of a history of Alexander, full of geographical details.

11. Kyrsilos of Pharsalos, who wrote of the exploits of Alexander.

12. Anaximenes of Lampsakos, author of a history of Alexander.

13. Diognêtos, who, with Baitôn, measured and recorded the distances of Alexander’s marches.

14. Archelaös, a geographer, supposed to have accompanied Alexander’s expedition.

15. Amyntas, author of a work on Alexander’s Stathmoi, i.e. stages or halting-places.

16. Patroklês, a writer on geography.

17. Megasthenês, friend of Seleukos Nikator, and his ambassador at the Court of Sandrokottos, king of Palibothra, composed an Indika.

18. Dêïmachos, ambassador at the same court in the days of the son and successor of Sandrokottos, author of a work on India in two books.

19. Diodotos of Erythrai, who, like Eumenês, kept Alexander’s Court Journal, and may possibly have been in India.

Five consecutive narratives of Alexander’s Indian campaigns, compiled several centuries after his death from the works of the writers enumerated, who were either witnesses of the events they described, or living at the time of their occurrence, have descended to our times, and are respectively contained in the following productions:—

1. The Anabasis of Alexander, by Arrian of Nikomêdeia.

2. The History of Alexander the Great, by Quintus Curtius Rufus.

3. The Life of Alexander, in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives.

4. The History of Diodôros the Sicilian.

5. The Book of Macedonian History, compiled from the Universal History of Trogus Pompeius, by Justinus Frontinus.

Arrian

Arrian, who is universally allowed to be by far the best of all Alexander’s historians, was at once a philosopher, a statesman, a military commander, an expert in the tactics of war, and an accomplished writer. He was born towards the end of the first century of our aera at Nikomêdeia (now Ismiknid or Ismid), the capital of Bithynia, situated near the head of a deep bay at the south-eastern end of the Propontis or Sea of Marmora. He became a disciple of the Stoic philosopher Epiktêtos (much in the same way as Xenophon attached himself to Sôkrates), and gave to the world an abstract of his master’s lectures, together with an Encheiridion or manual of his philosophy—a work which was long and widely popular. Under the Emperor Hadrian he was appointed in A.D. 132 prefect of Kappadokia. He had not long filled this office when a large body of wild Alan horsemen made one of their formidable raids into his province. They had hitherto proved irresistible, but on this occasion they were completely foiled by the skilful strategy and tactics of Arrian, who expelled them from his borders before they had secured any plunder. In Rome he was preferred to various high offices, and under Antoninus Pius was raised to the consulship. In his later years he retired to his native city, where he occupied himself in composing treatises on a considerable variety of subjects, but chiefly on history and geography. He died at an advanced age in the reign of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

His account of Alexander’s Asiatic expedition was followed by a treatise on India called the Indika. The first part of this work, which gives a description of India and its people, was based chiefly on the Indika of Megasthenes; and the second part, which narrates the famous voyage of Nearchos from the mouth of the Indus to the head of the Persian Gulf, was based on a journal kept by Nearchos himself. The work is but a supplement to his history. He speaks himself with noble pride of this great work. “This I do assert,” he says, “that this historical record of Alexander’s deeds is, and has been from my youth up, in place to me of native land, family, and honours of state; and so I do not regard myself as unworthy to take rank among the foremost writers in the Greek language, if Alexander be forsooth among the foremost in arms.” “Quel délire de l’amour propre!” here exclaims Sainte-Croix. His merits as an author are thus well stated by a writer in Smith’s Classical Dictionary: “This great work (the Anabasis) reminds the reader of Xenophon’s Anabasis, not only by its title, but also by the ease and clearness of its style.... Great as his merits thus are as an historian, they are yet surpassed by his excellences as an historical critic. His Anabasis is based upon the most trustworthy historians among the contemporaries of Alexander.... One of the great merits of the work is the clearness and distinctness with which he describes all military movements and operations, the drawing up of the armies for battle, and the conduct of battles and sieges.”

Q. Curtius Rufus

Nothing is known with any certainty respecting either the life of this historian or the time at which he lived. Niebuhr makes him contemporary with Septimius Severus, but most critics with Vespasian. Zumpt again, who, like some other eminent scholars, identifies him with the rhetorician Q. Curtius Rufus, of whom Suetonius wrote a life now lost, places him as early as Augustus.[5] The style in which his history is written certainly shows him to have been a consummate master of rhetoric. He was particularly given to adorning his narrative with speeches and public harangues, and these, as Zumpt observes, are marked with a degree of power and effectiveness which scarcely anything in that species of writing can surpass. It may also be said that his style for elegance does not fall much short of the perfection of Cicero himself. It has of course its faults, and in these can be traced the incipient degeneracy of the Latin language, such as the introduction of poetical diction into prose, the ambition of expressing everything pointedly and strikingly, not to mention certain deviations from strict grammatical propriety.

The materials of his narrative were drawn chiefly from Ptolemy, who accompanied Alexander into India, from Kleitarchos their contemporary, and from Timagenes, who flourished in the reign of Augustus, and wrote an excellent history of Alexander and his successors. While the sources whence he derived his information were thus good on the whole, he was himself deficient in the knowledge of military tactics, geography, chronology, astronomy, and especially in historical criticism, and he is therefore as an historical authority far inferior to Arrian. But in perusing his “pictured pages” the reader takes but little note of his errors and inconsistencies, being fascinated with his graceful and glowing narrative, interspersed as it is with brilliant orations, sage maxims, sound moral reflections, vivid descriptions of life and manners, and beautiful estimates of character. It is not surprising that with such merits Curtius has been one of the most popular of the classical authors. In spite of all his sins, for which he has so often been pilloried by the censors of literary morals, his history of Alexander has been the delight and admiration of not a few of the greatest of European scholars. He seems to have taken Livy as his model, as Arrian took Xenophon for his. His work consisted originally of ten books, but the first two are lost, and in some of the others considerable gaps occur. The French translation of Curtius by Vaugelas, who devoted thirty years of his life to the task, is so remarkable for its elegance that it has been pronounced to be as inimitable as Alexander himself was invincible. It is not, however, a very close version.

Plutarch

There are but few works in the wide circle of literature which have afforded so much instruction and entertainment to the world as Plutarch’s Parallel Lives of the Famous Men of Greece and Rome. These Lives, which are forty-six in number, are arranged in pairs, and each pair contains the life of a Greek and a Roman, followed, though not always, by a comparison drawn between the two. Alexander the Great and Caesar are ranked together, but no comparison follows. In his introduction to the life of the former, Plutarch explains his method as a biographer. “We do not,” he says, “give the actions in full detail and with a scrupulous exactness, but rather in a short summary, since we are not writing histories, but lives. It is not always in the most distinguished achievements that men’s vices or virtues may be best discerned, but often an action of but little note—a short saying or a jest—may mark a person’s real character more than the greatest sieges or the most important battles.” His Lives, therefore, while useful to the writer of history, must be used with care, since they are not intended as materials for history. His narrative of Alexander’s progress through India has one or two passages which show this indifference to historical accuracy, as when, for instance, he states that the soldiers of Alexander refused to pass the Ganges when they saw the opposite bank covered with the army of the King of the Praisians.[6] His account of the battle with Pôros is, however, excellent, and all the more interesting, because, as he tells us, he obtained the particulars from Alexander’s own letters.[7]

Plutarch was a native of Chairôneia, a town in Boiôtia. The date of his birth is unknown, but may be fixed towards the middle of the first century of our aera. He visited Italy, and lectured on philosophy in some of its cities. For some time he lived in Rome, where, it is said, but on doubtful authority, that he was promoted to high offices of state, and became tutor to the Emperor Trajan. The later years of his life he spent at Chairôneia, where he discharged various magisterial offices and held a priesthood. The date of his death, like that of his birth, is unknown, but it is clear that he lived to an advanced age. Besides the Lives, he published other writings, mostly essays, having some resemblance to those of Bacon. They are sixty in number, and are called collectively Moralia, though some of them are of an historical character. Two of them are orations About the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander. His style is somewhat difficult, at times cumbrous and involved, and somewhat deficient in that grace and perspicuity for which the works of the Attic writers are noted. His writings are all the more valuable from their supplying a deficiency of the Greek historians, whose works are filled with the records of war and politics, while giving us but little insight into men’s private lives and their social surroundings.

Diodoros the Sicilian

Diodôros was born at Agyrium, a city in the interior of Sicily, and was a contemporary of Julius Caesar and the Emperor Augustus. It was the great ambition of his life to write an universal history, and having this in view he travelled over a great part of Europe and Asia in order to acquire a more accurate knowledge of countries and nations than could be obtained from merely reading books. In Rome, where a far greater number of the ancient documents which he required to consult had been collected than were to be found elsewhere, he resided for a considerable time. He spent thirty years in the composition of his work, to which he gave the name of Bibliothêkê, which indicated that it formed quite a library in itself, embracing, as it did, the history of all ages and all countries. It consisted of forty books, which he divided into three great sections: 1st, the mythical period previous to the Trojan war; 2d, the period thence to the death of Alexander the Great; 3d, the period from Alexander to the beginning of Caesar’s Gallic wars. Considerable portions of the Bibliothêkê are lost, but all the books relating to the period with which we are concerned are still extant.

Diodôros constructed his narrative upon the plan of annals, placing the events of each year side by side without regard to their intrinsic connection. The value of the work is greatly impaired by the author’s evident want of critical discernment; he mixes up history with fiction, shows frequently that he has misunderstood his authorities, and advances statements which are mutually contradictory. His style is, however, pleasing, having the merits of simplicity and clearness. In his second book he gives a description of India epitomized from Megasthenes. His account of Alexander’s career in India records some interesting particulars of which we should otherwise have remained ignorant. He seems to have drawn largely from the same sources as Curtius.

Justinus Frontinus

Justin, in the preface to his work entitled De Historiis Philippicis, informs us that it was “a kind of anthology”—veluti florum corpusculum—extracted from the forty-four volumes published by Pompeius Trogus on Philippic (i.e. Macedonian) history. As these volumes included histories of nearly all the countries with which the Macedonian sovereigns had transactions, they embraced such a very wide field that they were regarded as a cyclopaedia of general history. Justin remarks that while many authors regard it as an arduous task to write no more than the history of one king or one state, we cannot but think that Pompeius had the daring of Hercules in attacking the whole world, seeing that in his books are contained the res gestae of all ages, kings, nations, and peoples. He then states that he had occupied his leisure while in Rome by selecting those passages of Trogus which seemed most worthy of being generally known, and passing over such as he took to be neither particularly interesting nor instructive. He has been much, but unjustly, blamed for his omissions, seeing that his only object in writing was to compile a work of elegant historical extracts. By so doing he has rescued from oblivion many facts not elsewhere recorded. From the extracts relating to India we gather more information about Sandrokottos (Chandragupta) than from any other classical source. Trogus Pompeius belonged, we know, to the age of Augustus, but it is uncertain when Justin lived. As the earliest writer by whom he is mentioned is St. Jerome, his date cannot be later than the beginning of the fifth century of our aera.

The Life of Alexander the Great

Fig. 1.—Lysimachos.

Fig. 2.—Aristotle.

Alexander III., King of Macedonia, surnamed the Great, was born at Pella in the year 356 B.C. He was the son of Philip II. and Olympias, who belonged to the royal race of Epeiros, which claimed to be descended from Achilles, the hero of the Iliad. The education of the prince was in the outset entrusted to Lysimachos, an Akarnanian, and to his mother’s kinsman Leonidas, a man of an austere character, who inured his pupil to Spartan-like habits of hard exercise and simple fare. In his thirteenth year he was placed under the immediate tuition of Aristotle, who acquired a life-long influence over the mind and character of his pupil. It may be supposed that the eager love of discovery which conspicuously distinguished Alexander from ordinary conquerors was in a great measure inspired and stimulated by the precepts of his master. In his sixteenth year he was entrusted, during his father’s absence on a foreign expedition, with the regency of Macedonia; and two years later, at the battle of Chaironeia, which was won chiefly through his impetuous valour, he displayed for the first time his incomparable genius for war. This victory made the Macedonian King supreme in Greece, and at a convention which met soon afterwards at his summons, and which was attended by deputies from all the Grecian states except Sparta, he was appointed to command the national forces and to conduct an expedition against Persia to avenge the invasions of Mardonios and Xerxes. He was actively engaged in preparing for this great contest when he fell by the hand of an assassin. Alexander succeeded (336 B.C.) not only to his sovereignty, but also to his supremacy in the affairs of Greece. He found himself, immediately on his accession, beset on all sides with most formidable opponents. Attalos, who was in Asia with a considerable force under his command, aspired to the throne; the Greeks, instigated by the passionate eloquence of Demosthenes, attempted to liberate themselves from Macedonian dictation, and the barbarians of the north threatened his hereditary dominions with invasion. The youthful monarch was equal to the emergency. He at once seized Attalos and put him to death. Then suddenly marching southwards, he suppressed by skilful diplomacy the incipient rebellion of the Greek states. In the next place he turned his arms northwards, and, after much severe fighting, subjugated the barbarous tribes which lay between the frontiers of his kingdom and the Danube. Finally, he quelled in blood and desolation the revolt of Thebes, which had been prompted by a false rumour of his death. Having thus in a single year made himself a more powerful monarch than his father had ever been, he directed all his energies to complete the arrangements for the Persian expedition. The whole force which he collected for this purpose amounted to little more than 30,000 foot and 4500 horse.

The empire which this comparatively insignificant force was destined to attack and overthrow was the greatest which the world had as yet seen, and had already subsisted for two hundred years. It had been founded by Cyrus the Great, and extended by his successors till it embraced all Asia from the shores of the Aegean and the Levant to the regions of the Jaxartes and the Indus. It was divided by the great belt of desert, which stretches almost continuously from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Aral, into two great sections which differed widely both in their physical aspect and the character of their inhabitants. The eastern tribes living amid mountains and deserts were rude, but distinguished for their hardihood, their love of independence, and their martial prowess. The western Asiatics, on the other hand, who inhabited those fair and fertile countries which had been the earliest seats of civilisation, were singularly deficient in these qualities. Enervated by ease and the affluence of luxuries, they offered but a feeble resistance to Alexander, and bent their necks submissively to his yoke. He had quite a different experience when he came into conflict with the tribes of the Oxus, Jaxartes, and Indus. They resisted him with the utmost spirit and determination, rose against him even after defeat, and succeeded in inflicting a signal disaster on his arms.

The system by which the vast empire was governed may be described as a rigid monarchy. It was divided by Darius Hystaspes into twenty provinces, a number which was afterwards much augmented probably by the subdivision of the larger ones. The government of each was committed to a satrap[8] whose powers were almost despotic. He collected the revenues, from which, besides defraying the expenses of his own administration, he was obliged to remit a fixed amount of annual tribute to the royal treasury. The Indian satrapy, which probably included Baktria and was limited to the regions west of the Indus, paid the largest tribute, which, as we learn from Herodotos, amounted to the immense sum of 360 talents of gold dust.

The king who filled the throne at the time of the invasion was Darius Kodomannos, who had some reputation for personal courage and some other virtues which might have adorned his reign had it been fated to be peaceful. He was, however, like Louis XVI. of France, quite destitute of the skill and nerve required for piloting the vessel of the state in stormy times. The empire long before his accession had been falling into decay. Insurrections were for ever breaking out. Some of the provinces, though nominally subject, were practically independent, while in others the satraps both claimed and exercised the right of transmitting their authority by hereditary succession. What saved it from dissolution was, not so much the strength of the government, as the reluctance of the leading men, through their distrust of each other’s good faith, to enter into combinations against it. It was another symptom of its weakness, that the king in his wars trusted far more to the Greek troops in his pay than to his native levies and their leaders. Neither the Greeks nor the Persians had lost sight of the fact that at Kounaxa the victory had been won for Cyrus by the Greek mercenaries.

Alexander having completed his preparations, and appointed Antipater to act as regent of Macedonia during his absence, crossed over the Hellespont into Asia in the spring of 334 B.C. His army, though numerically insignificant when compared with the magnitude of the enterprise which lay before it, proved nevertheless, from the physical superiority, courage, and daring of the men, combined with the perfection of their organisation and discipline, and the consummate skill of their leader, more than a match for any force, however numerous, which was brought into the field against it. We may here quote a passage from Thirlwall, in which he describes the composition, organisation, and equipment of this heroic little army which performed the greatest deeds recorded in military annals:

“The main body, the phalanx—or quadruple phalanx, as it was sometimes called, to mark that it was formed of four divisions, each bearing the same name—presented a mass of 18,000 men, which was distributed, at least by Alexander, into six brigades of 3000 each, formidable in its aspect, and on ground suited to its operations, irresistible in its attacks. The phalangite soldier wore the usual defensive armour of the Greek heavy infantry—helmet, breast-plate, and greaves: and almost the whole front of his person was covered with the long shield called the aspis. His weapons were a sword long enough to enable a man in the second rank to reach an enemy who had come to close quarters with the comrade who stood before him, and the celebrated spear, known by the Macedonian name, sarissa, four-and-twenty feet long. The sarissa, when couched, projected eighteen feet in front of the soldier: and the space between the ranks was such that those of the second rank were fifteen, those of the third twelve, those of the fourth nine, those of the fifth six, and those of the sixth three feet in advance of the first line: so that the man at the head of the file was guarded on each side by the points of six spears. The ordinary depth of the phalanx was of sixteen ranks. The men who stood too far behind to use their sarissas, and who therefore kept them raised until they advanced to fill a vacant place, still added to the pressure of the mass. As the efficacy of the phalanx depended on its compactness, and this again on the uniformity of its movements, the greatest care was taken to select the best soldiers for the foremost and hindmost ranks—the frames, as it were, of the engine. The bulk and core of the phalanx consisted of Macedonians; but it was composed in part of foreign troops. These were no doubt Greeks. But the northern Illyrians, Paeonians, Agrianians, and Thracians, who were skilled in the use of missiles, furnished bowmen, dartsmen, and slingers: probably according to the proportion which the master of tactics deemed the most eligible, about half the number of the phalanx. To these was added another class of infantry, peculiar in some respects to the Macedonian army, though the invention belonged to Iphicrates. They were called Hypaspists, because, like the phalangites, they carried the long shield: but their spears were shorter, their swords longer, their armour lighter. They were thus prepared for more rapid movements, and did not so much depend on the nature of the ground. They formed a corps of about 6000 men. The cavalry was similarly distinguished into three classes by its arms, accoutrements, and mode of warfare. Its main strength consisted in 1500 Macedonian and as many Thessalian horse. But the rider and his horse were cased in armour, and his weapons seem to have corresponded to those of the heavy infantry. The light cavalry, chiefly used for skirmishing and pursuit, and in part armed with the sarissa, was drawn from the Thracians and Paeonians, and was about the third of the number of the heavy horse. A smaller body of Greek cavalry probably stood in nearly the same relation to the other two divisions, as the Hypaspists to the heavy and light infantry. To the Hypaspists belonged the royal foot bodyguard, the Agêma, or royal escort, and the Argyraspides, so called from the silver ornaments with which their long shields were enriched. But the precise relation in which these bodies stood to each other does not appear very distinctly from the descriptions of the ancients. The royal horse-guard was composed of eight Macedonian squadrons, filled with the sons of the best families. The numbers of each are not ascertained, but they seem in all not much to have exceeded or fallen short of a thousand.”

From this description of the Macedonian army, it may easily be imagined what a formidable aspect its main arm—the phalanx of panoplied infantry—would present to the enemy. Polybios informs us that the Roman officers who were present in the battle of Kynoskephalai, and then saw the phalanx for the first time, told him that in all their experience of war they had never seen anything so terrible. The phalanx, however, as that historian points out, could only operate effectively on level and open ground—was quite unfit for rapid advance and rough terrain, and useless if its ranks were broken. It was thus helpless in face of an active enemy unless well supported by cavalry and light troops. This explains why Alexander attached so much importance to his cavalry. In point of fact he owed none of his victories to the phalanx; his cavalry, rapid in its evolutions and charging with resistless impetuosity, gained them all. In addition to the troops which have been particularised in the extract, there was one kind organised by Alexander called dimachai, intermediate between cavalry and infantry, being designed to fight on horseback or on foot as circumstances required. His artillery formed a very useful part of his equipment. The balistai and katapeltai of which it consisted threw stones and darts to the distance of 300 yards, and was frequently employed with great effect.

As he foresaw that in the course of his expedition he was likely to penetrate to regions either imperfectly or altogether unknown, he entertained on his staff men of literary and scientific requirements to write his deeds, and describe those countries and nations to which he might carry his arms.

He first came into conflict with the Persians on the banks of the Granîkos, a small river, which, flowing from Mount Ida through the Trojan plain, enters the Propontis to the west of Kyzikos. Their army, which consisted of 20,000 horse, and an equal number of Greek mercenaries, was commanded by several satraps who were assisted by the counsels of Memnon the Rhodian, the ablest general in the service of Darius. The Persians were drawn up in line along the right bank of the stream, while their mercenaries were posted on a range of heights that rose in the rear. Alexander drew up his forces on the opposite bank in the order which he adopted in all his great battles. Thus the phalanx formed his centre; he commanded himself the extreme right, and the officer in whom he had most confidence the extreme left. To either wing were attached such brigades of the phalanx as circumstances seemed to require. The Persians having observed where Alexander was posted, strengthened their left wing with dense squadrons of their best cavalry, anticipating that this part of their line would be exposed to the first fury of the onset led by himself in person. They judged aright. Alexander having sent a detachment of cavalry across the stream, followed with other cavalry and a portion of the phalanx. The Persians made a gallant resistance, but were soon beaten. Their darts and scimitars were no match for the tough cornel of the Macedonian spears. Their ranks first broke where Alexander himself in the hottest of the fight was dealing death and wounds around him. A blow which was descending on his own head, and which if delivered would have proved fatal, was intercepted by Kleitos, who cut off the arm of the assailant, scimitar and all. The field was won before either the phalanx on the one side, or the Greek mercenaries on the other, could come into action. The Macedonians, after returning from a short pursuit, closed around the mercenaries and cut them down, all but 2000 who were made prisoners and sent in chains to Macedonia. The number of the Persians slain was about 1000 against only 115 on the other side.

Alexander did not, like most other conquerors after a victory, plunder the surrounding country, but regarding Asia as already his own, treated the inhabitants as subjects whose interests he was bound to protect and promote. Neither did he at once advance into the interior, but, acting by a rule of strategy which he was always careful to observe, resolved to make his rear secure. He therefore first reduced all the western provinces of the empire which Darius after the defeat of his satraps had placed under the supreme authority of Memnon the Rhodian. Memnon was a formidable antagonist, both from his skill in war, and from his having a powerful fleet at his command, which gave him the dominion of the sea, and enabled him to threaten at will the shores of Greece and Macedonia.

Alexander marched from the battle-field to Ilion, and advanced thence southward through the beautiful regions of Ionia and the other maritime states, which, in striking contrast to their present blighted condition, were then at the height of prosperity—adorned with numerous rich and splendid cities, which vied with each other in all the arts of refinement. The terror of his name preceded him, and these cities one after another, including even Sardis, the western capital, which was strongly fortified, threw open their gates to admit him. Milêtos, however, and Halikarnassos, being supported by the Persian fleet, refused to surrender, and did not fall into his hands until each had been for some time besieged. After the fall of Halikarnassos, the rest of Karia, of which it was the capital, submitted, and then the operations of the first year of the war were brought to a close by the reduction of all Lykia. In this province he gave his army some rest.

The next campaign opened with the conquest of Pamphylia, after which Alexander turned his march away from the coast with a view to invade Phrygia, which lay to the north beyond the lofty range of Tauros. It was now the depth of winter, but Alexander in defiance of all obstacles—frost and snow, torrents and precipices, and the resistance of the fierce Pisidian mountaineers—forced his way into the Phrygian plains. This passage of the Tauros at such a season was an achievement not unworthy to rank with the more celebrated passage of the Alps made by Hannibal about a century later. After he had cleared the defiles, a march of five days brought him to Kelainai, the capital of the greater Phrygia, which was pleasantly situated where the river Marsyas joins the Maeander, and was embellished with a palace and a royal park. Alexander, deeming its acropolis to be impregnable, made terms with the inhabitants, and then advanced to the ancient capital called Gordion, after Gordios, the father of the celebrated Midas, the first king of the country. Here was the complicated knot to which the prophecy was attached that whoever untied it should be Lord of Asia. It was tied on a rope of bark which fastened the yoke to the pole of the wagon on which Midas had been carried into the city on the day when the people chose him as their king. Alexander either undid the knot or cut it through with his sword.

On the return of spring he moved forward to Ankyra (now Angora), and there had the satisfaction to receive the submission of the Paphlagonians, who at that time were a very powerful nation. Being thus free to move southwards without leaving an enemy in his rear, he entered Kappadokia, and having overrun it without encountering any serious opposition, he recrossed the Tauros by a pass that admitted him into the fertile plains of Eastern Kilikia. The capital of this province was Tarsos, a flourishing seat of commerce, art, and learning, built on both banks of the river Kydnos, which was navigable to the sea. This important city fell without resistance into Alexander’s hands, the satrap having fled at the tidings of his approach. Here, however, he nearly lost his life, having caught a violent fever by throwing himself when heated into the waters of the Kydnos, which ran cold with the snows of Mount Tauros. After his recovery he sent Parmeniôn eastward to occupy the passes leading into Syria, called the Syrian Gates, and marched himself in the opposite direction to reduce the hill-tribes of Western Kilikia. In the meantime Darius, advancing from the East, had crossed the Euphrates and the Syrian desert at the head of an army not less numerous than that with which Napoleon invaded Russia, and was lying encamped on a wide plain suitable for his cavalry within a two days’ march of the Syrian Gates. Here he waited for some time ready to fall upon the Macedonian troops and crush them with the overwhelming superiority of his numbers when they debouched from the defile. When he despaired of their coming, he marched into Kilikia through a pass known as the Amanian Gates and encamped on the banks of the Pinaros which flows through the plain of Issos to the sea. He thus placed himself in a trap where he was hemmed in by the mountains and the sea in a narrow plain not more than a mile and a half in width. Alexander meanwhile had passed through the other gates into the Syrian plain when he learned to his astonishment that Darius was now in his rear. He at once retraced his steps, and by midnight regained the pass, where from one of its summits he beheld the Persian watchfires gleaming far and wide over the plain of Issos. At daybreak he marched down the pass, and on reaching the open part of the plain made the usual disposition of his forces, Parmeniôn commanding the left, and himself the right wing. Darius had drawn up his line, which extended from the mountains to the sea, along the northern bank of the river Pinaros. In the centre, which confronted the dreaded Macedonian phalanx, he had posted a body of 30,000 heavy-armed Greek mercenaries.

Alexander began the action by dislodging a detachment of the enemy which had been posted at the base of the mountains and threatened his rear. Finding the Persians did not advance, he crossed the river and charged their left wing with such impetuosity that he broke their ranks and swept them from the field irretrievably discomfited. He then wheeled round and brought timely succour to his phalanx, which the Greek mercenaries of Darius were driving back with disordered ranks to the river. The struggle now became desperate, for these mercenaries, bitterly resenting the state of political degradation to which the Macedonians had reduced their compatriots in southern Greece, now fought against them with all the fury that the passions of hate and rivalry could inspire. They were nevertheless driven back, and the tide of battle surged up towards the state chariot itself, on which Darius was mounted in the centre of his line. The pusillanimous monarch no sooner perceived that his person was in danger than he ordered his charioteer to turn the heads of his horses for flight. This decided the fortunes of the day; it was the signal of his defeat, and his troops, on seeing it, at once broke from their ranks and fled from the field. The cavalry even, which on the extreme right had victory almost within their grasp, yielded to the general panic, and helped to swell the crowd of fugitives. As the narrowness of the plain allowed but very little room for escape, the vanquished were massacred in myriads. Darius escaped across the Euphrates, but his treasures and his family, consisting of his mother, wife, and children, fell into Alexander’s hands, who treated these illustrious captives with all the kindness and courtesy which were due alike to their misfortunes and their exalted rank.

He did not pursue Darius, and about two years passed away before he again met him in battle. His victory had left Syria and Egypt open to his arms, and these countries had to be reduced and the power of Persia effectually crushed at sea before he could advance with safety into the heart of the empire. He therefore marched southward to Phoenicia, the seaports of which supplied the Persians with most of their war-galleys. Parmeniôn he sent forward with a small detachment to seize Damascus, where Darius, before his defeat, had deposited his treasures. The city surrendered without resistance, and a vast and varied spoil fell into the hands of the Macedonians. The cities along the Syrian coast submitted in like manner to Alexander himself, all but Tyre, which sent him a golden crown, but refused to admit him within her gates. For this temerity the city of merchant princes paid a dreadful penalty. Alexander, having captured it after a seven months’ siege, burned it to the ground, and most of the inhabitants he either slew or sold into slavery. This is considered to have been the greatest of all Alexander’s military achievements. Tyre had hitherto been deemed impregnable. It was built on an island separated from the mainland by a channel of the sea half a mile in width; its walls, which were of great solidity, rose to an immense height, and its navy gave it the command of the sea. The inhabitants, moreover, were expert in arms, and defended themselves with such spirit and obstinacy that Alexander found himself unable to overcome their resistance, until he obtained from Cyprus and Sidon a fleet superior to their own. He had also to construct a causeway through the channel to enable him to bring his engines close up to the walls, and this was a work of vast labour and difficulty. His merciless treatment of the vanquished darkly overshadows the glory of this memorable exploit.

Palestine, with the adjoining districts, next submitted to the Conqueror. Gaza alone, like Tyre, closed its gates against him. This city, which stood not far from the sea, towards the edge of the desert which separates Syria from Egypt, was strongly fortified, and held out for two months. Alexander took it by storm, slaughtered the garrison, and then set out for Egypt. A seven days’ march through the desert brought him to Pelusium. The Egyptians, who smarted under the bondage of Persia, like the Israelites of old under their own, hailed his advent as that of a deliverer, and gladly submitted to his rule.

Alexander proceeded as far southward as Memphis and the Pyramids, and then embarking on the western or Kanopic branch of the Nile, sailed down to Lake Mareôtis, and landed on the narrow sandy isthmus by which that lake is separated from the sea. This neck of land was faced on the north by the island of Pharos, a long ridge of rock which sheltered it from all the violence of the ocean. Alexander, discerning with his keen eye all the advantages of such a position for commerce, at once founded on the isthmus the city of Alexandria, which, as he anticipated, soon became the great centre of trade between the eastern and western worlds. His next object was to consult the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, which was said to have been visited by Heraklês and Perseus, from both of whom he claimed to be descended. He therefore marched along the coast for about 200 miles to Paraitonion, which lay at the western extremity of Egypt. On the way he was met by deputies from Kyrênê, who brought him valuable presents, and invited him to visit their city. From Paraitonion he marched southward through the Libyan desert, and, after some days, reached the large and beautiful oasis where, embosomed amid thick woods, rose the temple of Ammon and the palace of his priests. On consulting the oracle he obtained answers, about the nature of which he stated nothing further than that they were satisfactory. He then returned across the desert to Memphis, where he settled the future government of Egypt, and ordered justice to be dispensed according to the ancient laws of the country. From Memphis he directed his march to Syria, and on reaching Tyre, remained there for some time. While he was in Egypt he had been visited by Hegelochos, his admiral, who reported that the Persians had been dispossessed of the islands which they had acquired in the Aegean; that their fleet had been dissipated, and that all their leaders were prisoners except Pharnabazos, the successor of Memnon, who had died somewhat suddenly while Alexander was in Phrygia.

Alexander was now, therefore, the undisputed master of all the countries west of the Euphrates, and could with complete security turn his arms eastward to bring his contest with Persia to a final issue. Darius, on the other hand, who, in the interval between his defeat and the fall of Tyre, had twice sent an embassy to the Conqueror to sue for peace and the ransom of his family, on terms which, though most tempting, had been haughtily refused, was mustering all his forces to encounter the storm of war which would sooner or later burst from the clouds that hung ominously on his western horizon. The army he now raised was far stronger numerically than that with which he had fought at Issos, and, as it was drawn chiefly from the east, consisted of the best troops in his empire. He led it from Babylon across the Tigris, and marching northward along the eastern bank of that river, reached the plains of northern Assyria, which afforded ample space for the evolutions of his numerous cavalry. Here he encamped on a wide plain between the Tigris and the mountains of Kurdistan, near a village called Gaugamela.

Fig. 3.—Seal of Darius.

Alexander, having remained at Tyre until his preparations were completed, started from that city after midsummer in the year 331 B.C. On crossing the Euphrates at the fords of Thapsakos, he learned where Darius was, and at once accelerated his march to find him. He passed the Tigris, which had been left unguarded, and advancing southward for a few days, came in sight of the Persian host, which he found already drawn up in line prepared for action. It is said that Parmeniôn, alarmed by the immense array of the hostile ranks, came at a late hour to the king’s tent and proposed a night attack, and that Alexander’s answer was that it would be a base thing to steal a victory. His forces amounted only to 40,000 infantry and 7000 horse, yet he was so confident of success that on the morning of the decisive day his sleep was deeper and longer than usual.

In its main features, the battle that followed was but a repetition of the day of Issos. Alexander again commanded the right wing and Parmeniôn the left. Again Darius posted himself in the centre of his line, and again the Greek mercenaries confronted the Macedonian phalanx. Again Alexander, at the head of the Companion cavalry, made havoc of the troops which guarded the royal standard; and again Darius, terror-struck at his near approach, ignominiously fled from the field. His flight gave once more the signal of defeat, and that too, as at Issos, just at the time when his cavalry on the right had made the position of Parmeniôn most critical.[9] Alexander was recalled from the pursuit of Darius, whom he was eagerly bent on capturing, by a messenger sent by Parmeniôn pressing for instant aid. He at once turned back. On his way he met the Persian and Parthian cavalry and the Indian troops now in full retreat. A combat close and hot followed. The fugitives were for the most part killed, but sold their lives dearly. On returning to the field Alexander found that his left wing was no longer in distress, but putting the enemy to rout, and he therefore started once more in pursuit of Darius. The fugitive escaped, however, to Ekbatana, the capital in former days of the Median kings.

Accounts differ as to the numbers that were killed in this battle. Arrian says, absurdly enough, that 300,000 of the Persians were slain, and a greater number taken prisoners. Diodôros reduces the amount to 90,000, and Curtius to 40,000. The loss again on Alexander’s side is reckoned by Arrian at 100, by Curtius at 300, and by Diodôros at 500.[10]

Alexander pursued the fugitive troops as far as Arbêla—the place which has given its name to the battle, though it was sixty miles distant from the field whereon it was fought. Here he found the baggage of Darius, and having enriched himself with its spoils, he advanced southward to Babylon. This great capital, which once gave law to all the nations of the East, had under the rule of the Achaimenids gradually declined both in wealth and importance. Its inhabitants, like the Egyptians, detested their Persian masters, who oppressed them and persecuted their religion. They issued therefore from their gates in a joyful procession to welcome the victor and present him with gifts. His first acts on entering the city were well calculated to make a favourable impression on their minds. He ordered the temple of Belus to be rebuilt, honoured that deity with a public sacrifice according to the Chaldaean ritual, and restored to his priests the immense revenues with which they had been endowed by the Assyrian kings.[11]

Alexander thus found himself the master of a more spacious empire than any the world had yet seen. No king or conqueror had ever before stood on such a giddy pinnacle of power. As he had made his way to this supreme height before he had yet reached those years or experienced those vicissitudes of fortune which have a sobering effect on the mind, it is not surprising that, as in the case of Napoleon, whose genius was at many points in close touch with his own, and who, at a like early age, had amazed the world with his deeds of arms, unbounded success tended to deteriorate his character. He is found henceforth becoming more arrogant and despotic, more suspicious, and avid of flattery, while less tolerant of advice or remonstrance, and less capable of controlling the violence of his passions. The simple style of living in which he had been brought up seemed no longer to please him, and he began to assume all the pomp and splendour with which an oriental despot loves to surround himself,[12] an innovation in his habits which deeply mortified the pride of the Macedonians. It may be urged in his defence that he may have made the change less from any real inclination than from the politic motive of conciliating his new subjects by conforming to their tastes and habits.

Before leaving Babylon he settled the affairs of Assyria and its dependencies in accordance with a principle on which he generally acted, committing the civil administration to a native ruler, but leaving the command of the forces and the collection of the revenue in the hands of Macedonian officers. He then marched eastward, and in twenty days reached Sousa, the favourite capital of the Persian kings. Rich as Babylon was, its treasures were as nothing compared with those which had been here accumulated. The sums contained in the treasury amounted to 40,000 talents of uncoined gold and silver, and 9000 talents of coined gold, and there was other booty besides of immense value, including the spoils which Xerxes had carried off from Greece—the recovery of which gratified beyond measure the patriotic feelings of the army.

From Sousa Alexander took the road to Persepolis, the ancient capital of the Persians, a rich and splendid city lying to the south-east of Sousa, in the beautiful vale of Persis which was fertilised by the streams descending from Mount Zagros, the Mêdos, and the Araxês.[13] On his route he passed through the hill-country of the Ouxians, which like that of the Pisidians, was occupied by warlike and predatory tribes. These mountaineers were nominally subject to Persia, but they nevertheless at one of their defiles exacted toll even from the Great King himself whenever he passed through their country in going between his two capitals. They beset this defile with the whole of their effective force to levy the customary tribute from Alexander, who payed them what he called their dues in the form of a crushing defeat.[14] He then plundered their villages, and, having received their submission, pressed forward by way of the formidable pass called the Persian Gates.[15] Here the satrap Ariobarzanes, at the head of more than 40,000 men, tried but in vain to arrest his progress. Alexander, with his usual skill and courage forced the position, and meeting with no further resistance reached Persepolis, where no defence was attempted. He not only permitted his soldiers to plunder this ancient capital, but, if we may believe the story, with which Dryden’s Ode has made us familiar, set fire with his own hands in a drunken revel to the royal palace, a structure of supreme magnificence, as its ruins, which are still to be seen, attest. It is more probable, however, that he burned it from motives of policy, partly to show the Persians how absolutely he was now their master, and partly to avenge Greece for the destruction of her temples by Xerxes. In the royal treasury he found the vast sum of 120,000 talents, which falls little short of thirty million pounds of our money. As it was now mid-winter he here gave his army some respite from their toils. He gave himself, however, no rest, but led a detachment to Pasargadai, the primitive seat of the Achaimenids, which contained an august monument, the tomb of Cyrus, which still exists, and a rich treasury which he plundered.[16] He next assailed the Mardians, and marching over ice and snow, reduced their mountain fastnesses and compelled their submission.

In the spring of 330 B.C. he resumed the pursuit of Darius, who was still at Ekbatana making vain efforts to raise another army. The fallen monarch, on hearing that the enemy was again moving against him and had reached Media, fled eastward hoping to find protection and safety in the far remote province of Baktria, of which his kinsman Bessos was the satrap. The capital which he had left was the summer residence of the Persian kings, and was noted for the enormous strength of its citadel. Alexander therefore ordered Parmeniôn to transport thither, as to a place of peculiar security, the treasures which had been seized at the other capitals, and to confide their custody to a strong guard of Macedonian soldiers.[17] This done, he set out with a light detachment of troops in the hope of overtaking the fugitive king before he passed through the Kaspian Gates. At Rhagai, which was a day’s rapid march from that pass, he learned that Darius had escaped beyond it, and he therefore halted for five days to recruit his troops. On renewing the pursuit and reaching the open country beyond the gates, he learned that the Persian officers who were escorting their sovereign had conspired against him and deprived him of his liberty. Greatly fearing now lest the traitors had some deadlier purpose in view, he made incredible exertions to overtake them, and he came up with them on the fourth day—but all too late. The conspirators, among whom was Bessos, finding that the pursuit was gaining upon them, mortally wounded the hapless king, who breathed his last before Alexander reached him. “Such,” says Arrian, “was the end of Darius, who as a warrior was singularly remiss and injudicious. In other respects his character is blameless, either because he was just by nature, or because he had no opportunity of displaying the contrary, as his accession and the Macedonian invasion were simultaneous. It was not in his power, therefore, to oppress his subjects, as his danger was greater than theirs. His reign was one unbroken series of disasters, and he was at last treacherously assassinated by his most intimate connections. At his death he was about fifty years old.” Alexander sent his body into Persia with orders that it should be buried with all due honours in the royal sepulchre. Bessos escaped into his own satrapy where he assumed the upright tiara, the distinguishing emblem of Persian royalty, and took the name of Artaxerxes.

Alexander now halted at Hekatompylos,[18] a place which received this Greek name from its being the centre where many roads met, and which became in after times the capital of the Parthian kings. Being joined here by the rest of his army, he prepared to invade Hyrkania, from which he was separated by the chain of mountains now called the Elburz. As the passes were beset by robber-tribes, he divided his army into three bodies. The most numerous division crossed the mountains under his own command by the shortest and most difficult roads. Krateros made a circuit to the left through the country of the Tapeirians (Taburistan), while the third division under Erigyios took the royal road which led westward from Hekatompylos to Zadrakarta.[19] The divisions on emerging from the defiles united, and encamped near the last named place, which was the Hyrkanian capital. Hither came to Alexander with three of his sons the aged Artabazos, accompanied by the Tapeirian satrap and by deputies from the Greek mercenaries of Darius. Artabazos was received with distinguished honour, both because of his high rank and the fidelity he had shown to Darius, whom he had accompanied in his flight. The satrap was confirmed in his government, but the deputies were sternly told that as the mercenaries had violated the duty which they owed to their country, they must submit themselves unreservedly to the judgment of the king. Alexander then attacked the Mardians who inhabited the lofty mountains to the north-west of the Kaspian Gates. They submitted after a slight resistance, and were ordered to obey the Tapeirian satrap.

Alexander’s next object was to crush Bessos and possess himself of all the eastern provinces as far as the borders of India. He therefore marched eastward towards Baktria, and having traversed the northern part of Parthia, reached Sousia, a city of Areia (now Sous, near Meshed, the present capital of Khorasan). Satibarzanes, the satrap of that province, and one of the conspirators against Darius, met him here, and having tendered his submission, was confirmed in his government, and dismissed with an escort of Macedonian horsemen to his capital, Artakoana. Alexander then resumed his march towards Baktria, but was arrested on the way by receiving word that Satibarzanes had revolted in favour of Bessos, armed the Areians, and slain his Macedonian escort. He therefore at once altered his route, and by the promptitude of his appearance confounded the plans of the satrap, who fled and was deserted by most of his troops. Artakoana was captured by Krateros after a short siege. This city stood in a plain of exceptional fertility at a point where all the roads from the north to the south, and from the west to the east, united, and Alexander, discerning the incomparable advantages of its position, whether for war or commerce, founded in its neighbourhood a new city in which he planted a Macedonian colony. He called it Alexandreia, and as it still exists as Herat, it will be seen how well grounded was its founder’s belief in the strategetical and commercial importance of its site.

Alexander, after suppressing this revolt, instead of resuming his march to Baktria, moved forward to Prophthasia (now Furrah), the capital of Drangiana (Seistan), of which Barsaentes, another of the accomplices in the murder of Darius, was satrap. This traitor was seized and executed. Here an event occurred which has left a dark stain on the character of Alexander. He was led to suspect that a conspiracy had been formed against his life by some of his principal officers, and among others by the son of Parmeniôn, Philôtas, who held the most coveted post in the army, that of commander of the Companion Cavalry. It is certain that he was not an accomplice in the plot; but as he had been informed of its existence, and failed to give the king any warning of his danger, he was accused before the Macedonian army and condemned to death. He confessed under torture that his father, Parmeniôn, had formed a design against the king’s life, and that he had himself joined the recent plot, lest his father, who was now an old man, might, before the plot was ripe, be snatched away by death from his command at Ekbatana, which placed the vast treasures deposited there at his disposal. This confession, wrung by torture when its agonies became insupportable, and obviously framed to meet the wishes of the questioners, was no proof of the guilt either of the father or the son. Parmeniôn was, nevertheless, on this worthless evidence condemned to death, and Alexander, whom he had so faithfully served, took care that the sentence should be executed before the news of his son’s death, which he might seek to avenge, could reach his ears. Many other Macedonians were also at this time tried and put to death. Alexander’s confidence in his friends was thus much shaken; and instead of entrusting as formerly the command of the Companion Cavalry to one individual, he divided that body into two regiments, giving the command of one to Kleitos, and of the other to Hêphaistiôn.

From Prophthasia he proceeded southwards into the fertile plains along the Etymander (R. Helmund), then inhabited by a peaceful tribe called the Ariaspians, who had received from Cyrus the title of Euergetai—that is, benefactors, because they had assisted him at a time when he had been reduced to great straits. Alexander spent two months in their dominions, probably awaiting the arrival of reinforcements from Ekbatana. During this interval Dêmetrios, a member of the king’s bodyguard, was arrested on suspicion of his having been implicated with Philôtas in the recent plot, and his office was bestowed on Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, for whom this promotion opened the way to a royal destiny. Alexander before resuming his march appointed a governor over the Euergetai, but rewarded their hospitality by augmenting their territory and confirming them in the enjoyment of their political privileges.

He left this country about mid-winter, and ascending the valley of the Etymander penetrated into Arachosia, a province which stretched eastward to the Indus. As he advanced northward by Kandahar the snow lay deep on the ground, and the soldiers suffered severely both from hunger and cold. About this time he heard that the Areians had again revolted at the instigation of Satibarzanes, who had entered their province at the head of 2000 horse, and he immediately sent a detachment under Erigyios to quell the insurgents. Continuing meanwhile his own advance, he arrived at the foot of the colossal mountain-barrier, the chain of Paropanisos, which separates Kabul from Baktria. Here in a commanding position, near the village of Charikar, which stands in the rich and beautiful valley of Koh-Daman, he founded yet another Alexandreia (called by way of distinction Alexandreia of the Paropamisadai, or Alexandria apud Caucasum), and planted it with Macedonian colonists. According to Strabo he wintered in this neighbourhood, but Arrian leads us to suppose that he departed as soon as he had founded the city. He crossed the mountains, as some think, by the Bamiân Pass, the most western of the four routes which give access from the Koh-Daman to the regions of the Upper Oxus. It is likelier, however, that he ascended by the more direct route along the course of the Panjshir river. The army again suffered on the way from the severity of the cold, and still more from the scarcity of provisions. According to Aristoboulos nothing grew on these hills but terebinth trees and the herb called silphium, on which the flocks and herds of the mountaineers pastured. This march, which terminated at Adrapsa, occupied fifteen days.

The Macedonians had now reached a fertile country; but as Bessos had ordered it to be ravaged, they found a wide barrier of desolation opposed to their further advance. The barrier was interposed in vain. Alexander resolutely pressed forward, and Bessos and his associates fled at his approach, and, crossing the Oxus, retired into Sogdiana. Aornos and Baktra, the two principal cities of the Baktrian satrapy, surrendered without resistance, and the satrapy itself was soon afterwards reduced. At Baktra Erigyios, who had succeeded in quelling the Areian revolt, rejoined the army. Alexander having appointed Artabazos satrap of his new conquest, marched to the Oxus in pursuit of Bessos, and came upon that river at the point where Kijil now stands. There it was about three-quarters of a mile in breadth, and the current was found to be both deep and rapid. The passage, which occupied five days, was made on floats, supported by skins stuffed with straw, and rendered watertight. The army had no sooner gained the right bank than messengers arrived from two of the leading adherents of Bessos—Spitamenes, the satrap of Sogdiana, and Dataphernes—promising to surrender Bessos, who was already their prisoner, if Alexander would send a small force to their support. The king assented, and sent Ptolemy forward to receive the traitor from their hands. They gave him up, and he was conducted with a rope round his neck into the presence of the king, who ordered him to be scourged and then conveyed to Zariaspa (which some identify with Baktra), there to await his final doom.

The army next marched forward to Marakanda, now Samarkand, then merely the capital of the Sogdian satrapy, but destined to be in aftertimes the capital of the vast empire founded by Timour. It stood in the valley of the Polytimêtos (R. Kohik), a region of such exuberant fertility and beauty that it figures in Persian poetry as one of the four paradises of the world. Alexander remained for some time in this pleasant neighbourhood to remount his cavalry and otherwise recruit his forces. He then advanced to the river Jaxartes, which formed the boundary between the Persian empire and the barbarous Skythian tribes, and which the Greeks confounded with the Tanais or Don. The country was protected against the inroads of these warlike tribes by a line of fortified towns, of which the largest and strongest, Cyropolis, had been founded, as its name imports, by Cyrus. Alexander captured all these fortresses and manned them with small Macedonian garrisons; and to curb the Skythians still more effectually, founded on the banks of the Jaxartes, near where Khojent now stands, still another Alexandreia, which the Greeks for distinction’s sake called Eschatê, or “the Extreme.” In the midst of this undertaking, he was interrupted by the sudden outbreak of a widespread rebellion instigated by Spitamenes and his confederates. Taking immediate and energetic steps for its suppression, he in a few days recovered the seven towns; and then crossing the Jaxartes, defeated the Skythians, who with a view to aid the insurgents had mustered in great force on its right bank. After this victory he received tidings of the first serious disaster that had befallen his arms. He had sent a large force to operate against Spitamenes, who was at the time besieging the Macedonian garrison which held Marakanda. On learning that this force was approaching, the rebel chief retired down the Polytimêtos to Bokhara, and thence to the vast desert which stretches from Sogd to the Sea of Aral. Here he was joined by a large body of Skythian horsemen, and thus reinforced turned upon his pursuers, drove them back from the edge of the desert, which they had just entered, into the valley whence they had emerged, and there, amid the woody ravines of the Polytimetos, cut them to pieces almost to a man. Encouraged by this success, he returned to Marakanda and renewed the siege of its citadel, but on learning that Alexander was rapidly returning from the Jaxartes, he retraced his steps towards the desert, and reached it before the enemy overtook him. The course of the pursuit led Alexander to the scene of the late disaster. His first care was to bury the slain, and he then avenged their death by ravaging with fire and sword, in all its length and breadth, the lovely valley of the Polytimetos. He showed no mercy, but slaughtered all who fell into his hands, soldier and citizen alike. This is certainly, as Thirlwall remarks, one of the acts of his life for which it is most difficult to find an excuse.

As the year (329 B.C.) was now drawing to a close, he recrossed the Oxus and returned to Zariaspa (Baktra?), where he spent the winter. Sentence was here pronounced upon Bessos, who was mutilated and then sent to Ekbatana for execution. Alexander’s European forces, as the narrative has shown, were constantly undergoing diminution, not only by losses in the field, but also by his leaving Macedonian veterans to garrison important strongholds, or to form the nucleus of the population of the cities he founded. He therefore from time to time sent requisitions for recruits to Macedonia and Greece, and as these were adequately met the fighting quality of his troops was always maintained at the same high level. During his stay at Baktra a great number of such recruits arrived, and filled up the large gap which the late disaster had made in his ranks. There came thither also ambassadors from the King of the Skythians, bringing presents and the offer of a marriage alliance, which was declined. The King of the Khorasmians, moreover, whose dominions, according to his own account, bordered on the land of the Kolchians and the Amazons, came in person and offered his services to Alexander should he wish to subdue the nations to the north and west of the Kaspian Sea. Alexander, however, being now anxious to enter India, declined his offers for the present.

The accounts of his next two campaigns are confused, and not always mutually consistent. According to Curtius, when he moved from Zariaspa, he crossed the river Ochos (now the Aksou), and came to a city called Marginia, probably the Marginan of our times. Arrian, however, makes no mention of this expedition. The Baktrians were still imperfectly subjugated, and the Sogdians, notwithstanding the severe chastisement they had received, were again up in arms against his authority. He therefore left Krateros to deal with the former, while he marched in person against Marakanda. On his way thither he performed another of his marvellous achievements, the capture of a fortress perched on the summit of a steep, lofty, and strongly fortified rock, held by a powerful garrison, and deemed to be impregnable. He captured it, nevertheless. Within this stronghold Oxyartes, a Baktrian chief, had for safety deposited his wife and daughters. Roxana, the eldest daughter, was, next to the wife of Darius, the most beautiful of all Asiatic women, and Alexander was so captivated with her charms that he did not hesitate to make her his wife.

Spitamenes, meanwhile, assisted by the Massagetai, one of the Skythian tribes that ranged over the Khorasmian desert, made a devastating irruption into Baktria, and though he was in the end repulsed by Krateros, escaped into the desert beyond the reach of pursuit. Fearing he might renew his attack in some other quarter, Alexander hastened to Marakanda to settle the province and provide for its security against future hostile incursions. To this end he directed a number of new towns to be founded and planted with Macedonian, Greek, and native colonists. In the course of this expedition he came to the Royal Park at Bazaria (perhaps Bokhara), and while hunting within its precincts killed a lion of extraordinary size with his own hand.

On his return to Marakanda a tragic incident occurred—his murder of Kleitos, from whom he had received some provocation in the course of a drunken revel. As he was tenderly attached to Kleitos, who was the brother of his nurse, and had saved his life at the Granîkos, his remorse for this frenzied deed knew no bounds at the time, and gave him many bitter moments in his after life.

His next expedition led him towards the western frontier of the province, where he reduced the district called Xenippa, which lay on the skirts of the Noura mountains—a range that runs from east to west about ten miles north of Bokhara. As Spitamenes was supposed to be in the desert not far off, he left Koinos in that part of the country with orders to capture that audacious rebel, while he himself withdrew to Nautaka, where he intended to pass the winter. This place was situated in a fertile oasis between Samarkand and the Oxus, and must have occupied the site of Kurshee or Kesh, noted afterwards as the birthplace of Timour. Spitamenes, meanwhile, attacked Koinos, but was defeated after a severe struggle, and driven back into the desert. His Skythian confederates, fearing their own country might be invaded, cut off his head and sent it to Alexander; and so perished the most active, bold, and persevering antagonist that he had as yet encountered in Asia, one of the few who resolutely and to the last scorned to bend his neck to a foreign yoke.

With the first return of spring (B.C. 327) he moved from his winter quarters to invade the Paraitakai, who, as their name indicates, inhabited a mountainous district, and were, some think, a branch of the widespread Takka tribe, the name of which appears in Taxila, which designated a great capital it possessed in India. In the country of the Paraitakai, which lay to the east of Baktria and Sogdiana, there was another great rock fortress, which, like the Sogdian, was deemed impregnable. It was the main stronghold of a chief called Khorienês, who, after holding out for some time, was persuaded by Oxyartes to cast himself on the generosity of the great conqueror, a quality of which he had himself a very satisfactory experience. Khoriênes therefore surrendered, and was rewarded by being confirmed in his government. Alexander after this success proceeded to Baktra in order to make preparation for his expedition into India, but left Krateros to reduce such of the tribes as still held out for independence. At Baktra another tragedy was enacted. The court pages, at the instigation of one of their number, called Hermolaos, who had been subjected to some degrading punishment, conspired against the king, who narrowly escaped assassination. The pages, who all belonged to families of high rank, were tortured to extract confessions of their guilt, and were then stoned to death by the Macedonians. The confessions indicated, it is said, that Kallisthenes, a literary man attached to the court who had been permitted, on the recommendation of his kinsman Aristotle, to accompany the expedition, not only knew of the existence of the plot, but had encouraged the pages to persist in their design. He had rendered himself obnoxious to the king by the freedom with which he expressed his opinions and by his opposition to the Persian fashions introduced into the court, and his doom was sealed. Accounts differ as to the time and mode of his death. According to Ptolemy he was tortured and then crucified, but Aristoboulos and Chares agree in stating that he was carried about in chains and died at last of disease in India.

The summer had set in when Alexander set out from Baktra on his Indian expedition. He crossed the chain of Paropamisos in ten days, and halted at the Alexandreia which he had founded at their base to settle the affairs of that city and the surrounding district. The narrative of his campaigns, from the time he left this place till he led his army into Karmania, after its disastrous march through the burning sands of the Gedrosian desert, is given in full detail in the translations which form the body of this work. His march, which on his emerging from the desert lay through the beautiful and fertile province of Karmania, resembled a festive procession, and the licence in which he permitted his soldiers to indulge was meant no less to obliterate the memory of their terrible sufferings in the desert than to celebrate according to Bacchic fashion and example the conquest of India.

In Karmania, Alexander received intelligence that Philip, who had been left in command of all the country west of the Indus had been slain in a mutiny by the Greek mercenaries under his command, but that the Macedonian troops had quelled the mutiny and put the assassins to death. He did not at the time appoint any successor to Philip, but empowered Eudêmos and Taxiles to take temporary charge of the affairs of the satrapy. Before he left Karmania he was rejoined by Krateros who brought in safety the division of the army which he had led from the Indus by way of Arachôsia, Drangiana, and the Karmanian desert. Nearchos also visited his camp, which at the time was a five days’ journey distant from the sea, and communicated the welcome news that the fleet had arrived in safety at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The admiral was instructed to continue the voyage by sailing up the Gulf to the mouth of the Tigris, while Hephaistiôn was put in command of the main army with orders to proceed to Sousa along the maritime parts of Persis and Sousiana. The king himself with a small division took the upper road which led to that capital through Pasargadai and Persepolis. In Persis things had not gone well in his absence. The satrap whom he had appointed was dead, and his office had been usurped by Orxines, a Persian of great wealth and high rank, against whom many acts of violence and oppression were charged. He found also that the tomb of Cyrus had been desecrated and plundered, and this outrage excited his violent indignation, since he looked upon that conqueror as the founder of the vast empire which was now his own. He could not discover the perpetrators, but had to content himself with ordering the violated sepulchre to be properly restored. On reaching Persepolis he investigated the charges against Orxines, and finding them proved, put him to death, and gave his satrapy to Peukestas, one of the commanders of his bodyguard.

In Persis the health of Kalanos, the Indian gymnosophist, who, at Alexander’s request, had abjured the ascetic life and followed him from India, began to fail, and, as he chose rather to die than suffer the infirmities of age, he announced that it was his intention to burn himself. The king attempted to dissuade him, but finding that he was inexorably bent on self-destruction, ordered a funeral pyre to be prepared for him, and all the arrangements connected with his cremation to be superintended by Ptolemy. On the day appointed the devotee ascended the pyre and perished in its flames, exhibiting throughout a serene fortitude and self-possession which greatly astonished the Macedonians who attended in throngs to witness this strange spectacle. Strabo makes Pasargadai to be the scene of this incident, but Diodôros, Sousa, and with more probability, since we know that Nearchos was an eye-witness of the burning.

Alexander reached Sousa in the beginning of the year 324 B.C., and remained there for a considerable time, regulating the affairs of his new dominions. One of his great objects was to fuse together as far as was practicable his European with his Asiatic subjects; and to this end he assigned to some eighty of his generals Asiatic wives, giving with each an ample dowry. He took himself a second wife, Barsinê, called sometimes Stateira, the eldest daughter of Darius, and, it is said, also a third, Parysatis, the daughter of Ochos, one of the predecessors of Darius. About 10,000 Macedonians followed the example of their superiors, and all who did so received presents from their royal master. Carrying out this object in another form, he enrolled a large number of Asiatics among his European troops. These new schemes were so bitterly resented by the better class of his Macedonian veterans that they rose against him in a mutiny which he had no little difficulty in quelling. About 10,000 of these veterans were dismissed, and they returned to Europe under the command of Krateros. Towards the close of the year he went to Ekbatana, and there he lost his chief favourite Hêphaistiôn, who succumbed to an attack of fever. His grief at this bereavement knew no bounds, and showed itself in acts which seem copied from those wherewith Achilles demonstrated his passionate sense of the loss of his beloved Patroklos. From Ekbatana he marched back towards Babylon, and was met on the way by ambassadors from all parts of the known world, who came to do homage to the greatest of all kings and conquerors, and also by a deputation of Chaldaean priests who warned him of danger if at that time he should enter Babylon. He entered it nevertheless, though with gloomy forebodings, early in the spring of 323 B.C. As this city was the best point of communication between the eastern and western parts of his dominions, he had selected it to be the capital of his vast empire, and accordingly took measures immediately on his return for the improvement of its internal condition, for the drainage of the swampy lands in its neighbourhood which rendered its climate unhealthy, and also for removing obstacles to the safe and easy navigation of the great river by which it communicated with the sea.

His ambition being still, however, unsated, he meditated fresh conquests, which, if effected, would have made him master of the world from the shores of the Atlantic to the Eastern Ocean. But his end was now drawing near. The climate of Babylon was malarious, and as his spirits were depressed both by his loss of Hêphaistiôn and by superstitious fears, he was less able to withstand its malignant influences. He caught a fever, and having aggravated its virulence by indulging in convivial excesses, was cut off in June 323 B.C. at the age of thirty-three, and after he had reigned for nearly thirteen years. “So passed from the earth,” says Bishop Thirlwall, “one of the greatest of her sons: great above most for what he was in himself, and not, as many who have borne the title, for what was given him to effect. Great, not merely in the vast compass and the persevering ardour of his ambition ... but in the course which his ambition took, in the collateral aims which ennobled and purified it, so that it almost grew into one with the highest of which man is capable, the desire of knowledge and the love of good. In a word, great as one of the benefactors of his kind.... It may be truly asserted that his was the first of the great monarchies founded in Asia that opened a prospect of progressive improvement, and not of continual degradation, to its subjects: it was the first that contained any element of moral and intellectual progress.” This estimate, high as it is, appears to be just and sober, and to hold a due balance between the extravagant eulogiums and the damnatory criticisms of other writers such as Mitford, Williams, and Droysen on the one hand, and Niebuhr, Sainte-Croix, and Grote on the other, who all alike allowed their ethical and political proclivities to bias their judgment.

Fig. 4.—Alexander the Great.

Alexander was dignified both in his appearance and in his demeanour. He was not above the ordinary height, but his frame was well built and extremely muscular. “He was very handsome in person,” says Arrian, “devoted to exertion, of an active mind and a most heroic courage, tenacious of honour, ever ready to meet dangers, indifferent to the pleasures of the body, and strictly observant of his religious duties.” Plutarch tells us that the statues of Alexander which most resembled him were those of Lysippos, who alone had his permission to represent him in marble, and who best hit off the turn of his head, which leaned a little to one side.[20] He adds that he was of a fair complexion, with a tinge of red in his face and upon his breast, and that his breath and whole person were so fragrant that they perfumed his under garments. In another passage, describing Alexander’s habits, the same author says that he was very temperate in eating, and that he was not so much addicted to wine as he was thought to be. What gave rise to this opinion was his practice of spending a great deal of time at table. The time, however, was passed rather in talking than drinking, every cup introducing some long discussion. Besides, he never sat long at table except when he had abundance of leisure. There was always a magnificence at his table, and the expense rose with his fortune till it came to the fixed sum of 10,000 drachms for each entertainment. As in his dying moments he had given orders that his body should be conveyed to Ammôn in the Libyan oasis, it was embalmed, and after more than two years had been spent in making preparations for its removal, it was conveyed with vast pomp in a car of wondrous magnificence to Egypt, where it was entombed first at Memphis, and afterwards, by the authority of Ptolemy,[21] at Alexandreia, the greatest of all the cities which he had founded and called after his name.

Alexander was so prematurely cut off, and was besides so much occupied before his death with organising fresh expeditions, both maritime and military, that he had no time to improve or complete the measures which he had initiated for promoting the fusion and securing the permanent unification of the multifarious races comprised in his empire. Had he been vouchsafed a longer term of life, it seems probable that he would have succeeded in welding so firmly together all the parts of his dominions that centuries might have elapsed before they became again disintegrated; but the dissensions which speedily broke out between his great captains, originating in their ambition to rule with independent authority, shattered his empire and embroiled it in wars which lasted for nearly half a century.

Soon after his death Perdikkas, to whom in his last moments he had given his signet-ring, was appointed to conduct the government on behalf of the royal family, which was held to consist of Arrhidaios, the king’s half-brother, a man of weak intellect and character, and Queen Roxana, who a few months after her husband’s death gave birth to a son who received the name of Alexander Aigos. The satrapies were then divided among the leading generals. Perdikkas soon began to use his position for the furtherance of his own selfish designs, and having secured the support of Eumenês, attempted to crush his colleagues and assume all power to himself. He marched first into Egypt against Ptolemy, but on the banks of the Nile he was defeated and slain in a mutiny of his own men 321 B.C. Tidings soon afterwards reached the army that Krateros had been defeated and slain in fighting against Eumenês while marching to assist Ptolemy. The office of regent was upon this offered to Ptolemy, who declined its acceptance, as he held that the satrapies should become independent kingdoms. The army then conferred that office, along with the tutelage of the royal family, on Antipater of Macedonia, who had crossed over into Asia to oppose Perdikkas. A new partition of the provinces, which did not differ much from the former, was then made at a place in Upper Syria called Triparadeisos. Under this arrangement Ptolemy held Egypt; Lysimachos, Thrace; Antigonos, Phrygia or Central Asia Minor; Seleukos, Babylon; Antigenes, Sousiana; Peukestas, Persia; Peithôn, son of Krateros, Media; Nearchos, Pamphylia and Lycia; Arrhidaios, Hellespontine Phrygia; Antipater and Polysperchon, Macedonia and Greece. Eumenês still held the satrapy at first assigned to him—that of Kappadokia, Paphlagonia, and Pontos—and was now the leader of those who had been the adherents of Perdikkas. He was supported by Alketas, the brother of Perdikkas, Peukestas, Attalos, Antigenes, and by the influence of Olympias, the mother of Alexander. Besides Perdikkas and Krateros, two other great generals had by this time disappeared from the scene—Meleager, who had been cut off by Perdikkas, and Leonnatos, who had been slain in the Lamian war.

Antigonos was appointed by Antipater to conduct the war against Eumenês, and after many fluctuations of fortune at last captured him and put him to death. This happened early in the year 316 B.C. The fortunes of Alexander’s empire were then left at the disposal of five men—Antigonos, Lysimachos, Ptolemy, Seleukos, and Kassander, the son of Antipater, who had died in the year 319 B.C. The ambition and ever-increasing power of Antigonos soon led his colleagues to form a coalition against him, and a long series of hostilities followed. In the end Antigonos and his son Dêmêtrios, surnamed Poliorkêtês, were defeated by the confederates in the battle of Ipsos in 301 B.C. Antigonos fell on the field of battle, and the greater part of his dominions fell to the share of Seleukos, whose cavalry and elephants had been chiefly instrumental in winning the victory. He received as his reward a great part of Asia Minor as well as the whole of Syria from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean. Ptolemy obtained Phoenicia and Hollow Syria, but these provinces afterwards gave rise to frequent wars between succeeding kings of Egypt and Syria. A war in later times broke out between Seleukos and Lysimachos, in which the latter was slain in 281 B.C. His kingdom of Thrace was afterwards merged in that of Macedonia. Thus the empire of Alexander, after a period of incessant wars continued for upwards of forty years, was divided between the powerful monarchs of Macedonia, Egypt, and Syria.

Fig. 5.—Diodotos.

Fig. 6.—Antiochos the Great.

The successors of Seleukos were unable to retain hold of their remote eastern dependencies. About the middle of the third century B.C. Theodotos or Diodotos, the governor of Baktra, revolted from his grandson Antiochos II. and made Baktra an independent kingdom. Not long afterwards Aśôka, the grandson of Chandragupta, as we learn from one of his own inscriptions,[22] sent missionaries to the kings of the West to proclaim to them and to their subjects the doctrines of Buddhism. The kings named in the inscription are Antiyoka (Antiochos II., king of Syria), Turamaya (Ptolemy III., Euergetes, king of Egypt), Antigona (Antigonas Gonatas, king of Macedonia), Maga (Magas, king of Kyrênê). About the year 212 B.C. Antiochos III., surnamed the Great, marched eastward to recover Parthia and Baktria which had both revolted from the second Antiochos. He was, however, unable, even after a war which lasted for some years, to effect the subjugation of these kingdoms, and accordingly concluded a treaty with them in which he recognised their independence. With the assistance of the Baktrian sovereign Euthydêmos, who founded the greatness of the Baktrian monarchy, he made an expedition into India, where he renewed the alliance with that country which had been formed in the days of Sandrokottos. From Sophagasenos,[23] the chief of the Indian kings, he obtained a large supply of elephants, and then returned to Syria by the route through Arachôsia in the year 205 B.C.

Fig. 7.—Euthydêmos.

ALEXANDER’S ROUTE IN THE PANJAB

John Bartholomew & Co., Edinʳ.

Note:—Lines of Route shewn thus ——

ARRIAN

ARRIAN’S ANABASIS

Fourth Book

Chapter XXII.—Alexander crosses the Indian Kaukasos to invade India and advances to the river Kôphên

After capturing the Rock of Choriênês, Alexander went himself to Baktra, but despatched Krateros with 600 of the Companion Cavalry[24] and a force of infantry, consisting of his own brigade with that of Polysperchôn and Attalos and that of Alketas, against Katanês and Austanês the only chiefs now left in the country of the Paraitakênai[25] who still held out against him. In the battle which ensued Krateros after a severe struggle proved victorious. Katanês fell in the action, while Austanês was made prisoner and brought to Alexander. Of the barbarians who had followed them to the field, there were slain 120 horsemen and about 1500 foot. Krateros after the victory led his troops also to Baktra. While Alexander was here the tragic incident in his history, the affair of Kallisthenês and the pages, occurred.