Alexander's speech at Opis according to Arrian

[amyntoros]

There's a new military history magazine out of Holland, but published in English – Ancient Warfare – which may be of interest . The current issue even features an article on the Silver Shields by one of our members, Paralus. It is a beautifully produced publication, fairly slim at this point, but part of that is because it isn't replete with advertising as is found in many other magazines.

Further to this, I found something very interesting in the sample issue in the article entitled Scars, Spoils and Splendour, by Ross H. Cowan. (The sample issue is not a full issue by the way. The magazine has many more pages, however, I've, um, misplaced my first issue so I can't say how many pages it contains!) Cowan tells of the Roman practice of displaying scars as evidence of valor – something rather familiar to us in a different context – Arrian's record of Alexander's speech at Opis:

Arrian 7.10.1 But, you may say, the exertions and hardships were yours and all these acquisitions were mine, while I direct you without any personal exertion or hardship! Yet which of you is conscious that he exerted himself more in my behalf than I in his? Come then, let any of you strip and display his own wounds, and I will display mine in turn ; in my case there is no part of the body, or none in front, that has been left unwounded, and there is no weapon of close combat, no missile whose scars I do not bear on my person, but I have been wounded by the sword hand to hand, shot by arrows and struck by a catapult, and I am often struck by stones and clubs for your interest, your glory and your riches, while I lead you as conquerors through every land and sea, river, mountain and plain.

Here are some examples of the Roman practice from the Ancient Warfare article :-

Manius Aquilius (95 BC) on trial had his clothing ripped open by his lawyer to reveal a scarred torso. "See how all the scars are at the front of his body," declared Antionius, "they are the distinguished marks of combat." Cowan quotes Sallust on Gaius Marius who said, "… if occasion requires, I can show spears, a banner, horse trappings and other military prizes, as well as scars on my chest." He tells how Servilius "bared his upper body to display a mass of scars, and he singled out particular wounds and recounted how they had been received."

In the article, Cowan explains that scars were a symbol of virtus, proudly displayed, and that the action of loosening a toga to fully expose scars and regale a crowd with tales of how they were won was a "standard practice." Which brings me back to Alexander/Arrian and the following questions :-

Is it probable that Alexander's offer to display his wounds was the first recorded instance of such behavior? And was this demonstrable proof of valor emulated by the Romans who would have had access to the original biographies of Alexander? If we believe this to be so then it would follow that these particular remarks at Opis must have been recorded by Ptolemy or one of the other original biographers; therefore Arrian is proven to be faithful in recording Alexander's actual words – something many people believe to be the case regarding the entire speech.

Or … is it more likely that Arrian, fully aware of this practice amongst the Romans, decided that Alexander would have made such a demonstration in this situation if he had been a Roman, and therefore put these words into Alexander's mouth even though they were not found in his sources? Is it just another example of topos?

There's a third possibility – that the practice was habitual amongst both the Greeks and the Romans and arose simultaneously. Are any of our members with knowledge of general Greek history aware of any such incidents, prior to Alexander? If there are some to be found, then this third alternative is the most likely.

I probably shouldn't add any more comments until/if our ancient Greek specialists answer the above, but I was always one to jump into the water before testing it first. At this point I lean towards Arrian having fabricated these words of Alexander's because there are other parts of the Opis speech which trouble me, particularly this:

Arrian 7.9.9 If you consider me, what is there still in possession after these exertions but this purple and diadem? I have acquired nothing for myself; no one can point to treasures of mine, but only to your possessions or what is kept in trust for you, for I have nothing to gain by keeping them for my own use; I eat the same food as you do, I sleep as you do, except that my food is not, I think, as luxurious as some of you consume, and that I know that on your behalf I am wakeful, so that you may be able to slumber soundly.

I'm sorry if I offend here, but I think the entire excerpt above is utter and absolute nonsense! I can't help but imagine his army's response to such remarks. Here is a man who now owns the entire Persian empire – its palaces, cities, treasuries and tribute - and he is speaking to forces who had returned to the west in some considerable debt! Yes, Alexander paid those debts, but note how suspicious his soldiers had been of his offer in the beginning. They weren't even trusting of him at that point and believed it to be a way of finding out who had not lived within their means. Were these same men, now in revolt, likely to have accepted Alexander telling them he had no treasures "for his own use" – that the money was being kept "in trust" for the army? Equally unbelievable IMO, is that he told them they ate more luxuriously than himself?!! Here is what Athenaeus tells us about Alexander's dining habits :-

[Athenaeus Book IV. 146 c – d Alexander the Great, every time he dined with his friends, according to Ephippus of Olynthus, in the book which describes the demise of Alexander and Hephaestion, spent one hundred minas, (1-1/2 talents) there being perhaps sixty or seventy friends at dinner. But the Persian king, as Ctesias and Dionon (in his Persian History) say, used to dine in company with 15,000 men, and four hundred talents were expended on the dinner. This amounts, in the coinage of Italy, to 2,400,000 denarii, which, divided among 15,000 men, make 160 denarii, Italic currency, for each man. Consequently it comes to the same sum as that spent by Alexander, which was one hundred minas, as Ephippus related.

Hmm, that money being held "in trust" for the Macedonian rank and file – for that is whom Alexander was addressing at the time – was being spent rather liberally on food and entertainment, methinks.

I'm entirely mistrustful of this part of the speech, mostly because it is intended to appease the army and return them to support of Alexander whereas I think it would have either made them laugh out loud or enraged them even further. P.A. Brunt, the translator of the Loeb edition of Arrian, (unwittingly) supports my opinion here, for he has a footnote to the two lines which immediately precede my quote above.

Arrian 7.9.8 All the benefits from Egypt and Cyrene, which I won without a blow go to you; "hollow" Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, are your possessions; Babylon, Bactria, Susa are yours, and yours are the wealth of the Lydians, the treasures of the Persians, the bounty of India and the outer sea. It is you who are satraps, generals and taxiarchs.

Brunt's note reads thus :-

Tarn supposes that Alexander here turned to the officers, but the narrative does not suggest that they had manifested any opposition; this is a point suitable for a rhetorician who had forgotten the historic circumstances of the speech. Cf.10.3 nn

Arrian 7.10.3 (to which Brunt refers) tells us Alexander said "I have made the same marriages as you, and many of your children will be kin of mine." Brunt notes that this is "Absurd in relation to the common soldiers" and is perhaps related to later in the speech where Alexander says he "regards all of you as my kinsmen." That may have worked for Arrian, but it would have been meaningless to the rank and file earlier in the speech.

In conclusion, I'm holding out for a considerable amount of invention in Arrian's record of the speech. We're used to seeing that said here about Curtius, but not Arrian. Should I expect controversy?


Best regards,

[Paralus]

No. I wouldn't think so.

For myself the whole thing hinges on the palpably ridiculous notion that Alexander retains only the purple and his diadem. It is inconceivable that Alexander will have retained so little and put so much "into trust" for the ordinary soldier. Alexander had the rest of the world to conquer and he will not have done so by resorting to the Babylonian financiers and their loans.

The King was all - even in Philip's day – and it was his decision that mattered with the concerns of state and property. This was more so after Alexander’s “re-make” of the kingship. The model of Alexander was followed by the Diadochoi and the moneys that accrued to the “crown” were the crown’s to do with as the king saw fit.

One has to wonder about the use of speeches in Arrian. These are “constructed” well after any event they may pertain to. There has been a similar industry, for years, with respect to the speeches in Thucydides. The difference being, of course, that Thucydides’ speeches are written near contiguously with the events to which they pertain in comparison to Arrian (and Curtius). As well, they are designed as something of a “set piece” and showcase individual themes (for example, the Funeral Oration as an “ode” to great Athenian imperial experiment and the Melian Dialogue as stark exercise of that power). Thucydides is writing for an audience familiar with these events and the sentiments will likely have reflected something close to reality (as much as is possible).

To pick up on Amyntoros’ point, for which audience, then, is Arrian writing? A Romanised world would seem the obvious answer. I think the point of Roman “colour” to the Opis speech is well made.

Kind of you to notice the AW piece.

[karen]

I've always thought that part of that speech seemed a bit wonky, especially the "I stay awake so you can sleep" line. I mean, I know people who are doing guilt trips will sometimes lay it on with a trowel, but this is... well, Amyntoros, you already said it.

But Arrian is usually so conscientious about choosing his sources, and telling us which source gives which version... why would he fabricate entire speeches?

Here's a question: does he attribute any of the speeches he supposedly quotes to any of the sources? I'd say that if he doesn't... you've got a slam-dunk here.

As for the three possibilities re scar-baring, I'll go with #3 just because it seems like such an obvious thing to do, if one's military valour or service or sacrifice is questioned enough that one has the urge to prove it, that I would imagine it happened in every militaristic society that didn't have severe body taboos. I had a character in a novel do it, and this was before I'd read any historical accounts; the idea just came to me. Nowadays, a soldier can do it on the Internet... watch the video here for example.

Warmly,
Karen

[Paralus]

That speech in Arrian, on reflection, seems indeed penned for a Romanised audience. Those in Curtius (along with other lurid interludes: the chariots at Gaugamela) most definitely are. I have never really taken the Opis speech as anything remotely approaching any reality. The generalisation of Philip transforming the "upper" Macedonians from transhumant pastoralism to masters of both their lands and economic/military fortunes will, likely, be based on material extant about the man at the time that is no longer available to us. It is a good summary of the basic achievements of Alexander’s old man. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what he spoke.

The wounds scenario will have played well with an audience who cast wistful glances back to those simpler and honourable years of the republic. Many pined for a Rome, now long gone to them, that somehow represented a better and less corrupt ideal than the emperor-ruled “Pax Romana” that they currently lived in. An age where the competition among citizens for the glory of the triumph and of becoming the fist among the citizenry saw many a wound displayed – as well as given and received. All to the “greater glory of the Republic” even if the individual benefited hugely.

They had conveniently forgotten the execrable Clodius and other examples of egregious political thuggery, violence and murder in support of such aggrandising and jealous “first citizens” as Crassus. As do we all when we look back.

All that said, the Alexander depicted by Arrian showing off his wounds will have well resonated with a Roman public willing to be enthralled by stories of the hallowed republican heroes who were able to claim similar.

The Spartans, of course, had their “with it or on it”. I can’t, though, recall a penchant for the display of wounds in advancing one’s political or social status. That, to me, seems quintessentially Roman. Alexander did have a one sided cuirass. This was ostensibly to treat the habit of running away in battle that some apparently had. The idea was that it protected only the front – turn and you expose your back.

[Phoebus]

Was it he that wore it, or a select number of his troops?

[Paralus]

Was it he that wore it, or a select number of his troops?

Yes...not very clear. Don't write when exiting the office. Polyaenus (4.3.13) describes Alexander arming those Macedonians who had fled in battle with the hemithorakian : a half cuirass which protected only the front.

This has been cited in defence of the front row(s) of the phalanx being provided with a breastplate of some kind. That may be but no mention of a cuirass is made in what is known as the Amphipolis regulations (for Macedonian phalangites stationed at Amphipolis). This is from the time of Philip V though and it might be a stretch to compare arms over a century apart. It would be the safer bet that the linothorax was the "common" armour of the time of Philip and Alexander.

This is just the sort of comparison drawn by MM Markle when he uses Polybius' observations on the strengths and the weaknesses of the Macedonian phalanx. Observations made during the Roman "settlement" of Greece and Macedonia that saw the Macedonians under Perseus go down to catastrophic defeat at Pydna (168) and the Achaeans in 146. This ignores the fact that, by the second century (indeed by the third), the sarissa had reached a rather unwieldy 24 feet. Markle, using Polybius’ description of this fractious and tempramental creature, maintains that the phalanx could only be used over level ground, was incapable of any real battlefield manoeuvring and would be broken up and destroyed over broken ground and watercourses.

That may well have been so for the second century phalanxes of Philip V, Perseus and the Achaeans; indeed the results indicate this. Philip’s and Alexander’s phalanx – particularly those “masters in war” that Justin refers to them as that Alexander took on his conquest of the Achaemenid Empire – demonstrably did manage to fight over broken ground (at Granicus and Issus) and were breached or broken (at Issus, Gaugamela and Hydaspes) and still managed to not only survive but to win.

The point, I think, is that the phalanxes of Philip V, Perseus and the Achaeans were not the same creature. It is a dangerous parallel to draw.

[amyntoros]

Was it he that wore it, or a select number of his troops?

Yes...not very clear. Don't write when exiting the office. Polyaenus (4.3.13) describes Alexander arming those Macedonians who had fled in battle with the hemithorakian : a half cuirass which protected only the front.

For those who don't have easy access to Polyaenus:

4.3.13 The Macedonians having fled from the field, Alexander changed the coat of mail into a breast-plate: which was a protection to them, as long as they boldly faced the enemy: but if they fled, they exposed to the foe their naked backs. This had such an effect: that they never afterwards fled; but, if they were overpowered, always retreated in good order.

Polyaenus doesn't, unfortunately, tell us in which battle some of the Macedonians fled the field.

More later on the speech.

Best regards,

_______________
Amyntoros

PS. Oops, had forgotten I'd sent the Polyaenus excerpts to Susan. They can be found in her Alexander Sources website.