Stateira, Xenophon, and the Death of Darius - Split thread

[marcus]

It is not fair to accuse Amyntoros of attributing as "evil machinations" what could have been a perfectly understandable objective on Alexander's part. Darius, while alive, was a threat, a figurehead to whom the Persians could still flock, and to have him alive, even as a subordinate, would have been an incredibly risky strategy.

So are you endorsing the practice of secretly arranging for the assassination of one's enemies? If so, I must be more careful not to upset you, I suppose

Whoever said anything about "secretly arranging for the assassination" of one's enemies? Planning to kill Darius once he had been caught is very different from "secretly arranging" his assassination. And whether or not Sisygambis knew about it or not (which is the only "secret" insinuation I can think of) is irrelevant - she was in Susa and there is no evidence that Alexander had any correspondence with her after he left her there in late 331BC.

To then include the Bush/Clinton analogy is ridiculous - if you are going to accuse others of poor historical process, then please don't insult us all with a cheap shot like that.

It was my point that the Bush/Clinton thing is ridiculous. I honestly cannot see any reason or evidence to suppose that attributing murderous intentions to Alexander in respect of Darius is any less ridiculous.

Completely different, Andrew. The situation is different (think absolute monarchies, for a start), the mores are different, the "threat" is different - the two situations are different on so many different levels. Attributing to Alexander an intention of getting rid of the installed Great King, who presented a real threat to his claim to rule all of Asia, is altogether realistic. Many people would suggest that he would have been completely bonkers to allow Darius to live.

ATB

[amyntoros]

It is not fair to accuse Amyntoros of attributing as "evil machinations" what could have been a perfectly understandable objective on Alexander's part. Darius, while alive, was a threat, a figurehead to whom the Persians could still flock, and to have him alive, even as a subordinate, would have been an incredibly risky strategy.

So are you endorsing the practice of secretly arranging for the assassination of one's enemies? If so, I must be more careful not to upset you, I suppose

Let’s clarify this argument for a moment. "Evil machinations" are your feelings about what I'm suggesting took place. They are not my words, nor do they represent my feelings on this matter. My words on the death of Darius are as follows:

No matter how much it is romanticized in the sources or elsewhere, Alexander couldn't afford to let Darius live. Which is why I find it awfully convenient that Darius died while Alexander dilly-dallied for a few days right after having made such a speedy pursuit.

Yes, I do believe Alexander could have dawdled in order to allow Darius to be killed. We know he had an effective intelligence system; we know about the many debates in the Persian camp which led to the murder of Darius. It is entirely possible that Alexander had garnered some information in advance of the act and deliberately dawdled in the hope that the murder would take place. Contriving in the death of an enemy does not qualify as "evil machinations" in MY opinion. The history of the period (and earlier) is replete with assassinations done in order to secure the throne or maintain effective rule and Alexander was not exempt, nor can he be excused of lacking artifice. After Philip's death Alexander sent men to Asia with "orders to bring back Attalus alive if he could, but if not, to assassinate him as quickly as possible." (Diodorus 17.2.5) Men were sent by Alexander, in secret and with fake letters, to kill Parmenion – one of his own generals who until the trial of Philotas had always proved himself loyal to both Philip and Alexander. We don't dispute either of these events, so my opinion that Alexander may have wished for or contrived in the death of his enemy is quite feasible. If Alexander had wanted Darius dead it could have been a problem were he to be captured alive. How might he justify Darius' death and yet maintain effective rule and respect amongst the Persians? (Hmm, could be a moot point here as the Persians were quite used to new claimants to the throne dispatching all potential opposition, including in one instance hundreds of family members!) Anyway,this is why I said Darius' murder was "awfully convenient". Yes, it is a debatable point, but not in the manner of this present discussion which has descended into remarks as to my personal credibility.

It was my point that the Bush/Clinton thing is ridiculous. I honestly cannot see any reason or evidence to suppose that attributing murderous intentions to Alexander in respect of Darius is any less ridiculous.

Really? Why? Because Alexander never had murderous intentions towards anyone? See above.

The whole parallel is ridiculous, by the way. Bush and Clinton are political opponents, Alexander was engaged in conquest – i.e, he was at war with Darius. Is it so appalling to suggest that Alexander "allowed" a death to happen rather than dispatching his enemy directly? Not in my opinion, so I would appreciate not having words and attitudes thrust upon me.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

It was my point that the Bush/Clinton thing is ridiculous. I honestly cannot see any reason or evidence to suppose that attributing murderous intentions to Alexander in respect of Darius is any less ridiculous.

Really? Why? Because Alexander never had murderous intentions towards anyone? See above.

No, it is the specifics of the case that make the supposition that Alexander desired the death of Darius ridiculous, just as it is in the Bush/Clinton case. Presumably, Bush really does harbour murderous intentions towards Osama Bin Laden for example.

Attalus had publicly suggested that Alexander was a bastard, which was treason, since it denied Alexander's right to the throne.

The killing of Parmenion was a judicial execution, since, as Diodorus confirms, it was approved by the Macedonian Assembly, Philotas having implicated his father in the plotting against the king.

Alexander's dawdling happened before he had word of Darius' arrest btw. As soon as he heard that Bessus had usurped Darius, Alexander started racing forward again. Not very consistent with your theory.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

It was my point that the Bush/Clinton thing is ridiculous. I honestly cannot see any reason or evidence to suppose that attributing murderous intentions to Alexander in respect of Darius is any less ridiculous.

Really? Why? Because Alexander never had murderous intentions towards anyone? See above.

No, it is the specifics of the case that make the supposition that Alexander desired the death of Darius ridiculous, just as it is in the Bush/Clinton case. Presumably, Bush really does harbour murderous intentions towards Osama Bin Laden for example.

I have NO idea why you think this is ridiculous! Osama Bin Laden is considered to be an enemy, just as Darius was an enemy to Alexander and his Macedonians. I just can't imagine why or when they were supposed to have become so close that Alexander wouldn't have dreamt of harming Darius.

[Attalus had publicly suggested that Alexander was a bastard, which was treason, since it denied Alexander's right to the throne.

The killing of Parmenion was a judicial execution, since, as Diodorus confirms, it was approved by the Macedonian Assembly, Philotas having implicated his father in the plotting against the king.

And Darius was an enemy of Alexander - he was the then rightful king of Persia who had failed to surrender, had fled the battlefield, and was, until he was conspired against, attempting to gather more forces to his aid in order to continue to oppose Alexander.

[Alexander's dawdling happened before he had word of Darius' arrest btw. As soon as he heard that Bessus had usurped Darius, Alexander started racing forward again. Not very consistent with your theory.

I'm not even sure why I continued to debate my "theory" except that the tone of your posts made them difficult to ignore. Frankly this discussion has focused mostly on my other comment that "Alexander couldn’t afford to let Darius live." I continue to hold to that opinion. Even if Alexander had no inkling of the impending murder, it still doesn't follow that he truly regretted it. As Marcus said ...

As it was Bessus who had had Darius killed, Alexander would have been quite aware of the political implications, and also of the opportunity it gave him to act as Darius' legitimate heir, and to continue with the drive eastwards to avenge Darius' death - even before hearing that Bessus had adopted the tiara. Alexander was adept at propaganda already, as we well know, and he was hardly slow on the uptake.

On other matters mentioned earlier in this debate, beginning with the letters and conversations via envoys exchanged between Darius and Alexander. You had said that "Alexander had already offered that Darius might keep his throne if he accepted Alexander as his overlord (Diodorus 17.54.6). All these things are facts inconsistent with Alexander wanting to murder Darius." The actual quote is " He bade them tell Dareius that, if he desired the supremacy, he should do battle with him to see which of them would have sole and universal rule. If, on the other hand, he despised glory and chose profit and luxury with a life of ease, then let him obey Alexander, but be king over all other rulers, since this privilege was granted him by Alexander's generosity." I don’t see any inconsistency because Darius did NOT accept Alexander as his overlord. Few people in Alexander’s life got second chances, Harpalus being one evident exception; however, he was a person obviously very dear to Alexander’s heart. I doubt the same could be said of Darius.

Oh, and on the following :-

My problem with your opinion that Alexander wanted Darius dead is that I am unaware of any evidence that suggests any such thing in the sources. Everything I know of in the sources suggests exactly the opposite. You are yourself familiar with the source material, hence Pothosians may suppose your opinion to be based on source evidence. An opinion unsupported by source evidence is fine. However, it is not history, but merely historical fiction or fantasy.

You expressed that Alexander wished to reunite Stateira with Darius based upon his readings of Xenophon but I am unaware of any evidence that suggests such a thing in the sources. You are yourself familiar with the source material, hence Pothosians may suppose your opinion to be based on source evidence. An opinion unsupported by source evidence is fine. However, it is not history, but merely historical fiction or fantasy.

Tit for tat, huh, Taphoi? As for Pothosians suppositions of my remarks, I'm absolutely convinced that they are not so naïve as to fail to recognize when I am offering an opinion. We have a bevy of delightfully intelligent members who are fully capable of articulating objections to any theory. They will demand source evidence and/or further explanations for said theories, and will often engage in furious but reasonable debate with me and everyone else. It is always a pleasure to participate in debates with these members, even if we should be completely at odds with one another. And I would be lying if I said I had never learned something new from one of our members, or that I had never had a change of heart after reading a particular response. I never expect complete agreement with anything I write. If I did then I should not be participating in this forum.

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

I have only a little time at the moment as I will leave soon for a performance of Aristophanes' The Frogs - in Greek, Efstathios, in Greek! Okay ... it will have 'supra-titles' in English.

Nice! How was it? Was it in ancient Greek, or modern Greek? Were the actors Greek?

On the subject now. Nice twist of the discussion.

No, it is the specifics of the case that make the supposition that Alexander desired the death of Darius ridiculous, just as it is in the Bush/Clinton case. Presumably, Bush really does harbour murderous intentions towards Osama Bin Laden for example.

It's a nice thing that you used the word "presumably". Because this is a very debated topic. In the ancient world things were more clear. But now, you can never know. The one could have murderous intentions towards the other, if he isnt part of greater scheme. "Και ο νοών νοήτω", and whoever understood, understood.

The case with the latest names that you mentioned, presents no parallel here. It wasnt Darius the III that destroyed the temples in Athens e.t.c. So Alexander wouldn't have murderous intentions towards him specifically. Alexander's intentions were clear as the clearest day in Greece. He set off to conquer an empire, and in the battlefield he could kill Darius and win faster, and with less casualties for him. But outside the battlefied, had he captured Darius, he would have him submitting to him.

Amyntoros you are forgetting one thing i think. You present Alexander as totally calculative in this senario. Meaning that the murder of Darius was just another excuse for Alexander to go east. Fine. But how did Alexander know that Bessus would have gone east, and not south, or North? Were his intelligence service so confident about where would Bessus be heading to? When Alexander found Darius body, he didnt know if Bessus would go to the far east of the Empire or not. So at that point, we cant say that he thought of what Bessus did as a something that would suit him. And futhermore that assumption, makes Alexander's attitude towards Darius' murder, being dishonorable and all that, seem like an act. Which i believe it wasnt.

Alexander wanted to kill Darius at the battlefield. Anything more would be dishonorable.

[Paralus]

But how did Alexander know that Bessus would have gone east, and not south, or North? Were his intelligence service so confident about where would Bessus be heading to? When Alexander found Darius body, he didnt know if Bessus would go to the far east of the Empire or not.

Bessus was satrap of Bactria. He had the Bactrian cavalry contigent with him. He was a relation by blood to Darius III.

It is highly unlikely that (a) he waited for Alexander to arrange his 'succession' by mudering Darius and (b) that he will have gone to Persis, Babylonia or India to raise forces.

It is, though, highly likely that he would go to his satrapy where he was well entrenched.

[amyntoros]

I have only a little time at the moment as I will leave soon for a performance of Aristophanes' The Frogs - in Greek, Efstathios, in Greek! Okay ... it will have 'supra-titles' in English.

Nice! How was it? Was it in ancient Greek, or modern Greek? Were the actors Greek?

Couldn't tell you for sure if it was in ancient or modern Greek, but I was the only non-Greek speaking person in attendance and they all certainly understood it! It was nice – an interesting experience. Modern dress, which disappointed me – and I won't tell you what they had Dionysos wearing! – but I had problems with the "sub-titles" which were back-projected onto a narrow black band at the top left of the stage. When the stage lights were at their brightest, which was often, the words were almost impossible to read. I think I may re-read Frogs (it's been a long time) and perhaps go back in December so that I can focus on the acting. And, yes, the actors were Greek, from a Cypriot acting company.

Amyntoros you are forgetting one thing i think. You present Alexander as totally calculative in this senario. Meaning that the murder of Darius was just another excuse for Alexander to go east. Fine. But how did Alexander know that Bessus would have gone east, and not south, or North? Were his intelligence service so confident about where would Bessus be heading to? When Alexander found Darius body, he didnt know if Bessus would go to the far east of the Empire or not. So at that point, we cant say that he thought of what Bessus did as a something that would suit him. And futhermore that assumption, makes Alexander's attitude towards Darius' murder, being dishonorable and all that, seem like an act. Which i believe it wasnt.

Now, I don't think that the murder of Darius was an excuse for Alexander to go east, although it gave him a good opportunity to convince his tired Macedonian army why they should go there. I believe Alexander would have continued eastwards in any event in order to subdue those satraps that had not already surrendered to him, even if Darius had been killed at Gaugamela. And I wouldn't say that Alexander was totally calculative in this particular scenario. He was also a brilliant opportunist.

Alexander wanted to kill Darius at the battlefield. Anything more would be dishonorable.

The case with the latest names that you mentioned, presents no parallel here. It wasnt Darius the III that destroyed the temples in Athens e.t.c. So Alexander wouldn't have murderous intentions towards him specifically. Alexander's intentions were clear as the clearest day in Greece. He set off to conquer an empire, and in the battlefield he could kill Darius and win faster, and with less casualties for him. But outside the battlefied, had he captured Darius, he would have him submitting to him.

It doesn't apply here, IMO, that Alexander wouldn't have murderous intentions towards Darius for the reason that he had had no involvement in the destruction of the temples. And, as an aside, it should be noted that I've never said Alexander had "murderous intentions," just that I believe he couldn't afford to let Darius live. (And that for political reasons.) It was a time of war, and murder is not a word I would throw out with abandon. However, and back to the subject, Alexander promoted his campaign as being about revenge for that which the Persians had done to Greece all those long years ago, it not mattering that Darius III hadn't been personally responsible.

Look at the Branchidae who were punished – deceived and then butchered when unarmed and bearing olive branches – for something their ancestors had done during the reign of Xerxes. And, yes, as with Thebes, we're told that Alexander referred the decision to others – in this instance, the Milesians - but when they had a difference of opinion "he declared that he would himself consider the best course of action." (Curtius 7.5.28-35) (And please, Stathi, don't counter with "Curtius is unreliable". The destruction of the city is also recorded by Strabo.) They died at Alexander's behest because of something their ancestors had done long, long before their time. Some might call Alexander's actions murderous and think him dishonorable, no doubt, but they would be measuring the act by our definition of dishonorable, not Alexander's. I'm not sure how I feel yet – am still studying the religious beliefs of the period and trying to understand - but whatever one's views about the event, it does demonstrate that Alexander was a complicated individual whose morals were a product of his upbringing and a reflection of his time. His sense of honor, therefore, cannot be deconstructed to the point of declaring outright, without expectation of disagreement, that he would only have killed Darius in battle. Yes, I agree that he would have preferred to kill Darius in battle, but having failed to do so it doesn't necessarily follow that he required only Darius' submission afterwards. Or that Alexander wouldn't have found another way to bring about Darius' death.

I am not trying to persuade you to accept my viewpoint, by the way. Just trying to establish that it is as valid as any other.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

I don’t see any inconsistency because Darius did NOT accept Alexander as his overlord.

Actually he may have. As I have written elsewhere, this provides a good explanation of why Alexander dawdled in the middle of his hot pursuit of Darius and why Bessus usurped Darius. This fits in with the known circumstances very neatly, but it is not necessarily the only explanation for what happened, so it has the status of a conjecture and is unproved.

You expressed that Alexander wished to reunite Stateira with Darius based upon his readings of Xenophon but I am unaware of any evidence that suggests such a thing in the sources. You are yourself familiar with the source material, hence Pothosians may suppose your opinion to be based on source evidence. An opinion unsupported by source evidence is fine. However, it is not history, but merely historical fiction or fantasy.

LETTER TO DARIUS: You must then regard me as Lord of all Asia and come to me. If you fear that by coming you may receive some harm at my hands, send some of your friends to receive pledges. Ask for your mother, wife and children and what you will, when you have come, and you will receive them. (quoted verbatim by Arrian, Anabasis 2.14.8 )

Best wishes,

Andrew

[jasonxx]

Whatever the pros and cons are with the argument. It is fair to say personally I think it bennefited Alexander both politically and overall kingship that Darius was killed.

And to second the point and just to show how accute with politivcs and propoganda Alexander really was. What a beeter way to have rid of darius that for him to be killed by his own men.

Sometimes with Alexander and i thind Andrew once said Alexander could probably have plunged his hands into a bucket of manure and still come out smelling of Roses. In tne past I have argued Augastus caesars mind and cunning and always thought he was more cunning and cleverthan Alexander.

looking at some of Alexanders little gems im really not so sure.

Many moons ago a broke away from the Romantasised view of Alexander and fing a much more clever devious and some times down right nasty peice of work none of it takes away his success and his greatly it just emphasises that to me he was more than just a warrior and winner of battles he was the all rounder.

kenny

[Paralus]

I don’t see any inconsistency because Darius did NOT accept Alexander as his overlord.

Actually he may have.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Darius accepted Alexander as “overlord” of himself or of the empire. Such an interpretation relies far too heavily on supposed offers of up to half the empire (in rough terms) prior to the conflict at Gaugamela.

Indeed, after Gaugamela, Darius is reported raising forces at Ecbatana for a confrontation that will have occurred in the spring. Alexander certainly appears to have thought so. Odd behaviour for a “former” Great King that had accepted the Macedonian as his “overlord”.

It is difficult, at best, to reconcile the offers of vast amounts of Achaemenid territory to the Macedonian after Issus and, particularly, prior to Gaugamela. Darius, whilst ostensibly offering up great swathes of his empire, is busy assembling a royal army for a fight he has no intention of having. Further, the last offer is made whilst his assembled army is training in the region hear Arbela. Such offers – of territory already conquered by the invader – amid demonstrable preparations for war are irreconcilable. It is a contradiction that the ancient authors themselves were aware of and sought to explain away by claiming that Darius only prepared to fight after the failure of diplomatic moves (Curtius IV.6.1). Problem is, Arrian dates this to somewhere near summer 332 and Diodorus Autumn 331. The royal army of Gaugamela is well along or assembled at this point.

In any case, the offer the Euphrates is out of the question at a time when the army and the Great King are patently prepared to fight for same. Further the Persian aristocracy, follwing the mobilisation, will likely have taken a very dim view of such overtures. Bessus and Narbazarnes may well have taken matters into their own hands somewhat earlier.

LETTER TO DARIUS: You must then regard me as Lord of all Asia and come to me. If you fear that by coming you may receive some harm at my hands, send some of your friends to receive pledges. Ask for your mother, wife and children and what you will, when you have come, and you will receive them. (quoted verbatim by Arrian, Anabasis 2.14.8 )

In contrast to the above, Arrian is relentlessly single minded in his portrayal of Darius. This portrayal is of a feeble and weak-minded Great King who is something of a plaything for his advisors. He leads effeminate Persians who cannot stand against the tough and hard-bitten Macedonians and most any other Greek for that matter: a picture redolent of his favourite author Xenophon whose judgements here he parrots either directly or through the words he puts into Alexander’s mouth or letters.

The (suspect) letter referred to is chapter and verse of that canonical imagery. In fact, it so mirror’s the invader’s propaganda that it must be taken with a decent amount of salt. Contrary to the propagandistic claims, Darius is not at all abandoned by those close to him and remains what he always was: the legitimate Achaemenid king.

The death blow to that “legitimacy” was the surrender – without a fight – of the great centres of Babylon (Mazaeus) and Susa (Abiluties). That furthered by the surrender of Persepolis and its torching. At this stage Darius’ authority was in tatters. Indeed, from the moment he left Ecbatana, if not before, he was Bessus’ creature.

[amyntoros]

I don’t see any inconsistency because Darius did NOT accept Alexander as his overlord.

Actually he may have. As I have written elsewhere, this provides a good explanation of why Alexander dawdled in the middle of his hot pursuit of Darius and why Bessus usurped Darius. This fits in with the known circumstances very neatly, but it is not necessarily the only explanation for what happened, so it has the status of a conjecture and is unproved.

See Paralus' response.

]You expressed that Alexander wished to reunite Stateira with Darius based upon his readings of Xenophon but I am unaware of any evidence that suggests such a thing in the sources. You are yourself familiar with the source material, hence Pothosians may suppose your opinion to be based on source evidence. An opinion unsupported by source evidence is fine. However, it is not history, but merely historical fiction or fantasy.

LETTER TO DARIUS: You must then regard me as Lord of all Asia and come to me. If you fear that by coming you may receive some harm at my hands, send some of your friends to receive pledges. Ask for your mother, wife and children and what you will, when you have come, and you will receive them. (quoted verbatim by Arrian, Anabasis 2.14.8 )

Yes, I know the above. It was a political move. Of course if Alexander was going to offer/accept surrender from Darius then he would return his wife. That would be the only sensible thing to do. It isn't, however, proof that Alexander was actively and enthusiastically aping Cyrus in this matter. Just Alexander exhibiting common sense. Would Darius have surrendered willingly to Alexander if he had been told that A was to keep his wife for himself? I doubt it.

And I also doubt that Alexander expected his offer to be accepted in the first place, but that would be part of the other discussion in which Paralus is actively engaged.

Oh, and you've quoted me above (the historical fiction/fantasy paragraph) without including the previous part of my post which shows that my statement was an imitation of the manner in which you had addressed me. Just needed to clarify that.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

Diodorus 17.39 1-2

Dareius hurried to Babylon and gathered together the survivors of the battle at Issus. He was not crushed in spirit in spite of the tremendous setback he had received, but wrote to Alexander advising him to bear his success as one who was only human and to release the captives in return for a large ransom. He added that he would yield to Alexander the territory and cities of Asia west of the Halys River if he would sign a treaty of friendship with him. Alexander summoned his Friends to a council and concealed the real letter. Forging another more in accord with his interests he introduced it to his advisers and sent the envoys away empty handed.

According to this tradition, Darius was not "cowed" and nor did he accept - for one minute - Alexander as his overlord. The same scenario in Arrian represents Darius writing to Alexander as his "equal". That Darius is widely reported as assembling an army at Ecbatana in the aftermath of Gaugamela and, further, is reported as writing to the remaining satraps to "maintain their fealty" as well as raise forces indicates that Diodorus' opening phrase of the the second sentence above still applied.

Darius can have expected that, when at Arbela in his council of war the decision was taken to make for Ecbatana and raise a final satrapal army (of the like that Eumenes would command in 317/16), Mazaeus and Abilutes will have have offered the Macedonian invader stiff resistance via time-consuming sieges. Darius' remaining authority was surrendered when this military plan collapsed with the completely unexpected surrender of both Babylon and Susa without a fight. When Persepolis and Pasargadae are added, it was terminal.

What is interesting is the tradition represented here of a forgery presented by Alexander. This is nothing unusual in antiquity (as indeed it is not today). Eumenes, in a celebrated example from the second Diadoch War, does just as well:

Diodurus, 19.23.1-3:

(Eumenes seeing that) Peucestas was playing up to the crowd in furtherance of his desire for the chief command, had fabricated a false letter, through which he made the soldiers confident of the outcome of the battles and, by lowering the pomp and circumstance of Peucestas, improved his own standing and increased his prospects of success in the eyes of the crowd.

As private secretary to both Philip and Alexander, Eumenes may well have been a dab hand at the game.