pothos.org

Phoebus,

The friends I had in mind were Philotas, Callisthenes, Alexander of Lyncestis. Cleitus was a spur of the moment thing, so I didn't include him. Bessus was treacherous to Darius and did Alexander a favour by killing him. Exacting retribution on someone for killing someone you'd been trying to kill shouts cynicism.

Alexander's excuse for invading India was to claim back the Persian satrapies, and they only extended as far as the Indus. When he went farther, he didn't expect to hold any of those lands; note he never fought Sopithes and Phegeus or tried to leave garrisons in their lands. He was passing through and they knew it, and that's why they didn't oppose him. He intended making the Indus his boundary from the outset.

Derek

derek wrote:The friends I had in mind were Philotas, Callisthenes, Alexander of Lyncestis. Cleitus was a spur of the moment thing, so I didn't include him. Bessus was treacherous to Darius and did Alexander a favour by killing him. Exacting retribution on someone for killing someone you'd been trying to kill shouts cynicism.

Alexander's excuse for invading India was to claim back the Persian satrapies, and they only extended as far as the Indus. When he went farther, he didn't expect to hold any of those lands; note he never fought Sopithes and Phegeus or tried to leave garrisons in their lands. He was passing through and they knew it, and that's why they didn't oppose him. He intended making the Indus his boundary from the outset.

Derek

Philotas might have been involved in a plot to kill Alexander. He was too powerful to be allowed to live while such suspicion could hang over him.

Alexander of Lyncestis was accused of plotting against Alexander. He was not executed initially because he was Antipater's son-in-law, and the accusation came too soon after the initial invasion of Asia Minor. When the Lyncestian was finally executed in 330BC, it was done with the connivance and approval (indeed, the urging) or Alexander's advisors.

I don't recall that it is ever mentioned that Alexander wished to kill Darius. However, even if he did, Bessus having him killed, and then proclaiming himself king, was a direct threat to Alexander. Alexander wished to consolidate his rule over the conquered lands, and was able to use Darius' death to announce a "legitimate" succession, through conquest (and no-one could argue with that). Bessus had commited regicide, and was now putting himself forward as a contender for a throne that Alexander claimed was his. There was no way Alexander could allow Bessus to get away with it. As for Bessus' punishment - that was meted out by Darius' family, after an initial torture that was visited upon Bessus by the Great King (ie. Alexander). I see no cynicism there - merely realpolitik.

Callisthenes' death was based on unproven accusations - refused accusations, no less - and there appears to be little, if no, justification for his execution. I make no apologies! Well, I make no apologies on Alexander's behalf for any of these killings; but I do think it is unjust to call Alexander "cold" because he had them killed. I know that there's a fine line (and judicial semantic) between "murder" and "judicial execution"; but as you yourself said, Alexander was a product of his own time ... again, I would urge the word realpolitik.

ATB

Phoebus wrote:

I was making no such comparison between any first or second time.

If we're just talking about the first battle, then I'm not sure what the issue is. The Athenians broke; we know this. The Thebans, on the other hand, were fighting nearby their city, and the Sacred Band in particular was far less likely to have broken (like the Athenians) or surrendered. Given this... what is the point of raising Alexander's conduct here.

The issue is that you have irretrievably conflated the battle of Chaeronea of 338 with the subsequent Theban revolt. These are two quite separate actions. The brutality of the second is, though, unarguably worse than the former.

The allied battle line, for the Thebans to have been “fighting nearby their city” will have stretched some seventy kilometres. At, say eight deep, that makes the allied hoplite contingent near to 560,000 men. Now, whereas some will tell you that’s fine for Persian “hordes”, it is plainly out of the question here.

Having driven the old “national road” and had a look for myself, the Sacred Band (and the other Thebans) were, in no way, nearby their seventy km (by modern road) distant city. For all practical purposes, they were as “close” as the fleeing Athenians were to Athens.

The battle was fought close to the town and acropolis of Chaeronea with the Achaean, Boeotian and Theban contingents holding the line right of the centre and the Sacred band, abutting the banks of a perennial watercourse, the Cephisus, on the far right. The casualties inflicted on this end of the line are done so by troops with Alexander at their head. The Sacred Band is massacred (leaving aside the possibility, on archaeological evidence, of 46 surviving) and the Boeotians lost “many”. The only other clue are the Achaeans who, at the onset of the Lamian War, claimed their severe losses here as the reason why they could not participate (Pausanias, 7.6.5)

Phoebus wrote:Where the garission towns are concerned, I agree with your views insofar as how those settlements turned out. I simply feel that Alexander had other plans for them.

As far as those towns were concerned, Alexander had left them to their own devices when he departed for and then from India. If the stories retailed are correct, he was off to Arabia and the western Mediterranean. They would not likely see or hear – directly – from the king for some goodly amount of time. Any spreading of “Hellenic” cultural mores was, in my opinion, of a seriously secondary concern. You yourself have hinted at it:

Phoebus wrote:Part of the plans Alexander had for the future involved large-scale population transplanting. Combine this with the military aspect (above), and one might guess that any social egalitarianism may have come about courtesy of the dillution of native culture and language in favor of a Hellenic standard. Pretty scary, if you ask me.

Scary indeed. The idea that the army will have owed its ongoing existence and future to its owner and paymaster, Alexander.

Alexander had already trained some 30,000 from these areas – and thoroughly removed them from their “surrounds”. He had taken his draft of native troops and now his garrison towns, complete with Hellenic cultural recreaction for the implants, would see to his fractious borders.

Had he lived, these means to an end (in my opinion) will have continued in the same vein: defence and the supply of recruits. His father had been doing similar throughout the Balkans for some decades before this.

Callisto wrote:
I believe this is what you are looking for.

Furthermore, on learning that Damon and Timotheus, two Macedonian soldiers under Parmenion's command had raped the wives of certain mercenaries, he wrote to Parmenio ordering him, in case the men were convicted, to punish them and put them to death as wild beasts born for the destruction of mankind.

Plutarch, Life of Alexander 22.2

That's the one! Thanks so much, Callisto. I see now that I had not recalled it accurately - don't know where I go the 'hanged' from - but this certainly doesn't prove that Alexander had a general rule forbidding rape, as this only concerns their own 'community'. If anything, he seems more concerned here about good discipline, and that Macedonian soldiers should respect the rights of men from other units (and their families), as Marcus pointed out.
As for the rape of the enemy's women, Karen has pointed out what a useful tool that was in/after battle, and it seems unlikely that it would have been the usual thing for Alexander to have forbidden it. That he did after meeting Timocleia, at least for women of certain families, shows compassion, I think. But amyntoros is right, and that probably wasn't a very good example to pick.

Fiona

Paralus wrote: No, not in polite company. For which read those about to be left behind in the middle of nowhere. I’m certain that Alexander didn’t mention “garrison town” when selecting the individuals who’d spend the rest of their natural lives miles from nowhere.

The “local people” were dispossessed (and often transferred) and reduced to the status of serf labour for their masters who would get to enjoy the temples and fine buildings whilst ensuring that the locals didn’t rise up behind the ever departing Alexander.

Life in such towns seems to have been akin to serving on the “eastern front”. If we trust our sources, some 20,000 of these individuals decamped at the news of the king’s death – indeed many were already up and moving at the mere rumour – and marched west away from their Hellenic cultural outposts.

They fought an army led by Peithon rather than return to their prior existence. They were also massacred for their trouble.

You paint a bleak picture indeed - and life may very well have been as miserable as you suggest. But that doesn't mean Alexander didn't have good intentions for these places, and the reason for bringing it up was as an example of his good intentions. That his early death meant his visions weren't fulfilled, doesn't take away from the intent.

I wonder, though - and I'm not arguing, here, but genuinely enquiring - shouldn't we be distinguishing between men left as garrisons, who might expect at some point to be relieved, and move on to other duties, and men who had been invalided out, and were expected to make a new life for themselves in the new city?

Would not the latter - being presumably no longer under military command - have been free to leave if they so wished? It may not have been practicable for them to do so, but that's a different thing. Maybe some of them didn't have much to go home for, and were glad enough to try to forge a new life in a new place? I think, too, we have to be careful not to put too modern a gloss on this set-up. Where we see the middle of nowhere, they may simple have seen unclaimed mineral rights, extensive pasture there for the taking, and the potential for wealth and prestige in a new place, one day, if they worked hard at it.

Fiona

Semiramis wrote:
Beautifully put Fiona. To apply this to Alexander, did he actually believe in his own 'plausible justifications' (cf money and power) for aggression? We have to remember that the pan-Hellenism stage of the campaign officially ended, supplanted by the need to avenge Darius' death as the cause for further conquest. For his later conquest in India, sources don't even mention any justification.

As you know, I don't believe Alexander (well, Phillp's really) pan-Hellenic propaganda was terribly convincing to the Greeks. Regarding avenging Darius' death, Alexander was happy to forgive Nebarzanes, the other killer of Darius who had surrendered to him. Suggesting that Alexander himself hadn't deluded himself into believing this one.

So, that leaves us asking again... what made Alexander great? Was it those cities bearing his name?

Very good questions! Did he believe his own propaganda? (If that is what it was.) Are anyone's motives ever simple? I think, if pushed, I'd have to say that his real motive was simply the Homeric one, to be ever the best. I think he believed in the pan-Hellenic campaign because no-one had ever pulled all the Hellenes together before, and he'd got everyone but Sparta, even if it was grudgingly in some cases. So he was the best, and he liked that, and he was leading them. He had to beat Darius, and he then he had to beat Bessus (because he'd claimed the throne, presumably) to show he was the best. Once that had happened, he could have gone home, but I think the explorer took over at that point. Then it became about going further than anyone had gone before.

What made him great? I offer three things: his success - whatever he turned his hand to, he succeeded. His untarnished image - dying young helped there. The third, there's no word for, but it's the wow factor, the gasp that takes your breath away, because whatever anyone else is or does, he's more. He always goes further, always over-the top. In ruthlessness and compassion, in patience and hot-headedness, in wisdom and craziness - whatever he is, he is its opposite also, and it's almost too much to get a handle on. And in all of those different directions, he's extreme. If he'd known when to stop, he still wouldn't have. That's why he's great.

Semiramis wrote:
Mere garrisons or beacons of Hellenic civilization? Do the temples, gymnasia etc. suggest that they were created to impart the benefits of Greek learning and culture to the natives? Here's an interesting factor to consider regarding these cultural centres. Did the local population actually have access to these buildings? Without access, how are the natives to fulfil any visions of Alexander's? Speaking of Alexander's vision, is there any evidence that Alexander harboured a desire to Hellenize the non-Greeks living near these towns? Or were temples simple opiates for the settlers stationed (abandoned?) so far from home?

Take care

Another very good question, and one that I'd never thought of. I'd like to know more about life in these cities. Is it right even to speak of them collectively, or were they all very different?
What do you think yourself?
Thanks for the interesting points, Semiramis.
Fiona

derek wrote:The friends I had in mind were Philotas, Callisthenes, Alexander of Lyncestis.

I fail to see how either was a "friend" in any real sense of the word. Two of the three were implicated in plots against him; Callisthenes' treatment may have been a more petty matter, or they may be a context that we are missing.

Bessus was treacherous to Darius and did Alexander a favour by killing him. Exacting retribution on someone for killing someone you'd been trying to kill shouts cynicism.

I'd actually argue the reverse. Why wouldn't someone aspiring to the Homeric ideal loathe Bessus? Is it inconsistent for someone wishing to kill or capture Dareius "honorably" to be upset when one of his target's trusted men turns on him and assassinates him? Only if you impose a more cynical outlook on him yourself.

Alexander's excuse for invading India was to claim back the Persian satrapies, and they only extended as far as the Indus. When he went farther, he didn't expect to hold any of those lands; note he never fought Sopithes and Phegeus or tried to leave garrisons in their lands. He was passing through and they knew it, and that's why they didn't oppose him. He intended making the Indus his boundary from the outset.

Then why the big deal about his men mutinying? How does this corrolate with his desire to see the ocean? Would he have ceded any lands between the Hydaspes and the Ocean to whoever lived there? His decision to form an eastern border with Porus' lands came when his men refused to march on eastward.

Paralus wrote:The issue is that you have irretrievably conflated the battle of Chaeronea of 338 with the subsequent Theban revolt. These are two quite separate actions.

I guess I read more in your post than there actually was. By implying a difference in conduct between Alexander and his father, I interpreted a corrolation between the treatment of the Sacred Band and the latter treatment of Thebes as a whole.

The allied battle line, for the Thebans to have been “fighting nearby their city” will have stretched some seventy kilometres.

Does a word like "nearby" really deserve such a literal treatment, Paralus? You understand well enough what I was getting at.

Having driven the old “national road” and had a look for myself, the Sacred Band (and the other Thebans) were, in no way, nearby their seventy km (by modern road) distant city. For all practical purposes, they were as “close” as the fleeing Athenians were to Athens.

Northwest of Thebes, Paralus? Not likely.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what repeating the casualty rates of the Sacred Band accomplishes. If they didn't wish to surrender, they must have felt there was a good reason not to... any by the standards of the time, I'm not sure that either Alexander or anyone else was obligated to give anything to a foe who would neither break nor lay down his arms.

As far as those towns were concerned, Alexander had left them to their own devices when he departed for and then from India. If the stories retailed are correct, he was off to Arabia and the western Mediterranean. They would not likely see or hear – directly – from the king for some goodly amount of time.

As I said earlier; a long-term plan.

Any spreading of “Hellenic” cultural mores was, in my opinion, of a seriously secondary concern.

In a purely conventional way, you're right. It doesn't seem that a short-term cultural inheritance for the masses was in plan. It's much more likely that an off-shoot of a Macedonian-military model would have been in store--egalitarianism through service, as it were.

You yourself have hinted at it:

I feel that the cited text is pretty consistent with my overall argument.

Alexander had already trained some 30,000 from these areas – and thoroughly removed them from their “surrounds”. He had taken his draft of native troops and now his garrison towns, complete with Hellenic cultural recreaction for the implants, would see to his fractious borders.

The difference being, of course, a presumed injection of both Hellenic-speaking people and other Asians over the long-term. That became impossible after his death.

Had he lived, these means to an end (in my opinion) will have continued in the same vein: defence and the supply of recruits. His father had been doing similar throughout the Balkans for some decades before this.

You're obliged to your opinion, of course, but I feel that you're assuming the worst of him.

Phoebus wrote:

Paralus wrote:The issue is that you have irretrievably conflated the battle of Chaeronea of 338 with the subsequent Theban revolt. These are two quite separate actions.

I guess I read more in your post than there actually was. By implying a difference in conduct between Alexander and his father, I interpreted a corrolation between the treatment of the Sacred Band and the latter treatment of Thebes as a whole.

I must say that this is becoming quite tiresome. I believe you did nothing of the sort. I believe you conflated the two engagements, nothing more; nothing less. It’s very simple, I started by noting:

I might add that there was no “great slaughter” at Chaeronea (such as it is attested). The Athenians lost some thousand dead and two thousand taken prisoner (or was that the other way around –I’m at the office and can’t check. The “slaughter”, such as it occurred, was at the Theban end where the “Sacred Band” was surrounded and spitted to death by the phalanx. Oddly enough, this was the end commanded by Alexander. We have, from memory, no reliable Boeotian casualty figure, just “many”.

Philip appears not to have surrounded and slaughtered the Athenian wing. Perhaps he possessed no cavalry?

Clearly discussing the one engagement. At which you leapt:

Phoebus wrote:The political situation wasn't the same the first time as it was the second. Killing the Sacred Band, on the other hand, was not just good policy--it may well have been justified given the course of the battle. I don't recall any record of the 300 select Thebans offering to surrender, and I'd be surprised if this were the case.

And to the closing sentence on Philip’s wing – clearly in the same battle and counterpoised against Alexander’s wing:

Perhaps, perhaps not. His army only had 2,000 cavalry (probably a rounded-off number, to boot). I can't really recall how most modern writers assign the splitting of the cavalry force between the two wings (I really am hating not having my books here), and Diodorus isn't very specific.

Given the situation, though, I would say that ensuring a victory and doing optimal damage to the soldiers of the nearby city-state trumped chasing down runaways from a city Phillip wasn't even planning on assaulting yet.

Phoebus wrote:If we're just talking about the first battle, then I'm not sure what the issue is. The Athenians broke; we know this. The Thebans, on the other hand, were fighting nearby their city, and the Sacred Band in particular was far less likely to have broken (like the Athenians) or surrendered. Given this... what is the point of raising Alexander's conduct here.

They demonstrably were not. They were fighting nearby Chaeronea not Thebes. The Athenian end of the line was next to the city itself. This morning’s guess (from memory) is over by fifteen kilometres: the distance is 55. This is no walk in the park – particularly in ancient times. It is at least a day’s forced march or more from Thebes.

That, though, is not the issue. The issue is your response:

Phoebus wrote:

The allied battle line, for the Thebans to have been “fighting nearby their city” will have stretched some seventy kilometres.

Does a word like "nearby" really deserve such a literal treatment, Paralus? You understand well enough what I was getting at.

Please don’t affect to turn the discussion to my interpretation of a word like “nearby”. What I “well understand” is that you evidently confused the battle of Chaeronea with the Theban uprising which was fought nearby Thebes.

Phoebus wrote:

Paralus wrote:Are you a cutting grown from my good self?

You have my view of the figures. Ya reads your books; ya forms your view.

I have. I'm asking for yours.

Asked and answered.

Paralus wrote:I must say that this is becoming quite tiresome.

Is it, now?

I believe you did nothing of the sort. I believe you conflated the two engagements, nothing more; nothing less.

And I explained to you my entire thought process. If you don't believe it, there's nothing I can do for you. I will, however, ask you not to try to be a mind reader. If I say that I read more into your post and then go on to explain my mindset for doing so, please don't try to tell me otherwise. I assure you I'm not going to lie about how I went about typing my post.

They demonstrably were not. They were fighting nearby Chaeronea not Thebes.

Now who's getting tiring, Paralus? I said they were fighting nearby Thebes. I never said they were an hour away or what have you; rather, you "leapt" in with a, sorry to say, rather ridiculous zinger about the line stretching to the city. The fact of the matter is that the Sacred Band didn't fight to the death to save the city of Chaeronea. Regardless of the fact that Thebes itself lay a day or more away by marching, the participants knew that this was the battle that was going to ultimately decide whether Phillip triumphed over his foes or not. The Sacred Band fought accordingly--and fell as such.

Thanks, derek, for these replies:

derek wrote: Yes, Porus fought Alexander and was reinstalled. So were Mazeus and Artabazus. Putting the old administration back to work reassured the locals and discouraged rebellion. As Porus' kingdom was going to be the eastern edge of Alexander's empire, reinstalling him was a better move than killing him out of spite. But look at Batis and Bessus. Gaza was going to be leveled so didn't need a governor, and Bessus died to make it seem like Alexander was avenging Darius' murder on behalf of the Persians. When Alexander forgave, it wasn't out of mercy or kindness, but because he had something to gain by doing so.

OK, not arguing that that he had things to gain there. Both mercy and harshness can coincide with good policy, on different occasions. How about a different example? How about Harpalus? What did he have to gain by forgiving him - twice?

derek wrote: I called Alexander amoral "by our standards", and deliberately included the caveat. He led a very moral and upright life "by his standards", yet he brought death and misery to hundreds of thousands. I doubt it even occurred to him that he may be doing anything wrong, and that's what makes him amoral by our standards.

Yes, I know you did say 'by our standards', that's why I was trying to find examples of things that seemed moral by our standards. But if you think he did wrong without knowing he was doing wrong, then that's fair enough for you to call him amoral.

derek wrote:
You bet he was cold. He murdered several of his closest friends. He assassinated his best general. He killed his cousin. He may have killed his father. He'd rub out anyone. But - he was a product of his environment.

Even if it was indisputable that he'd done all these things, that still wouldn't make him cold. I guess it depends a little exactly what you mean by cold, but I'm thinking emotionless, caring nothing for anything or anyone but how to achieve what he wanted. Like Himmler, for example.
D'you really think a cold person would get angry enough to kill Cleitus with his own hands, and then lie on his bed weeping about it?
I'm not saying he didn't do awful things. I'm saying he had hot reasons for doing them. not cold ones.

Fiona

Phoebus wrote:

derek wrote:Bessus was treacherous to Darius and did Alexander a favour by killing him. Exacting retribution on someone for killing someone you'd been trying to kill shouts cynicism.

I'd actually argue the reverse. Why wouldn't someone aspiring to the Homeric ideal loathe Bessus? Is it inconsistent for someone wishing to kill or capture Dareius "honorably" to be upset when one of his target's trusted men turns on him and assassinates him? Only if you impose a more cynical outlook on him yourself.

Phoebus, Alexander had no problem forgiving Nabarzanes, that other killer of Darius, when he surrendered. That suggests that his motives behind the treatment of both Bessus and Nabarzanes may have been less than Homeric in inspiration.

Fiona wrote:What do you think yourself?

About the towns, I think they were there to ensure the subjugation of the local population through the threat of immediate violence, if not real violence. As I've meantioned in the other thread, I don't see how the locals could've had access to the temples, gymnasia etc. So, no, I don't see any attempts in these buildings attempts to "benefit" the locals by forcibly "civilizing" them.

So, if he wasn't a "civilizing conqueror" that leaves us with just plain "conqueror". I see why the Romans would dub him "the Great". They were open admirers of violence, conquest, dominance and subjugation. That famous monument, Trajan's column, shows glorious victory of Rome over Dacia. We have fine details of Roman soldiers carrying severed heads, chopping off limbs etc. That war resulted in the total annihilation of the Dacian people and the acquisition of their gold. Of course, the Romans had found more plausible reasons for these two murderous wars of aggression whose ultimate gains were riches and power for the elite. That leaves me wondering, why do we, the supposedly enlightened folk, call Alexander great?

Take care

I'm curious as to why anyone would judge any historical figure but especially Alexander by "our standards"? I always thoughthe point of studying history was to see the world through the eyes of those who lived it. It's when we start judging them by modern standars that words like amoral start coming into play.

Alexander grew up in a time where all you had to leave behind was your name. Your name had pwoer and you were judged by your deeds. He reveled in the legecy of Achiles and what was done at Troy. For them Homer wasn't a poet but a historian recounting not myth but fact. Alexander's mother told him he was a direct decendent of Achiles. Achiles wasn't known for his diplomacy but for being the greatest warrior of his or any generation until Alexander himself came along.

Semiramis wrote:Phoebus, Alexander had no problem forgiving Nabarzanes, that other killer of Darius, when he surrendered. That suggests that his motives behind the treatment of both Bessus and Nabarzanes may have been less than Homeric in inspiration.

Forgive if I'm wrong, but I thought Nabarzanes merely suggested to Dareius that he cede to Bessus authority temporarily. I was under the impression that Bessus gave the order for the execution of the Great King, and that it wad due to this--and his subsequent assumption of the throne--that Alexander had him dealt with as he did. Nabarzanes, by contrast, surrendered and (I thought, at least) had little, if anything, to do with the execution itself.

Again, I could be wrong, but if Nabarzanes felt the need to leave Bessus' company before Alexander even got to Hyrcania, does this not imply that he didn't think too highly of the murder?

Cheers,
P.

LadyA wrote:I'm curious as to why anyone would judge any historical figure but especially Alexander by "our standards"? I always thoughthe point of studying history was to see the world through the eyes of those who lived it. It's when we start judging them by modern standars that words like amoral start coming into play.

Alexander grew up in a time where all you had to leave behind was your name. Your name had pwoer and you were judged by your deeds. He reveled in the legecy of Achiles and what was done at Troy. For them Homer wasn't a poet but a historian recounting not myth but fact. Alexander's mother told him he was a direct decendent of Achiles. Achiles wasn't known for his diplomacy but for being the greatest warrior of his or any generation until Alexander himself came along.

Hi LadyA,

This is an excellent point. What did the Greeks of Alexander's time think of him? How was he judged in the eyes of his coevals from the land of Homer?

Phoebus wrote:

Semiramis wrote:Phoebus, Alexander had no problem forgiving Nabarzanes, that other killer of Darius, when he surrendered. That suggests that his motives behind the treatment of both Bessus and Nabarzanes may have been less than Homeric in inspiration.

Forgive if I'm wrong, but I thought Nabarzanes merely suggested to Dareius that he cede to Bessus authority temporarily. I was under the impression that Bessus gave the order for the execution of the Great King, and that it wad due to this--and his subsequent assumption of the throne--that Alexander had him dealt with as he did. Nabarzanes, by contrast, surrendered and (I thought, at least) had little, if anything, to do with the execution itself.

Again, I could be wrong, but if Nabarzanes felt the need to leave Bessus' company before Alexander even got to Hyrcania, does this not imply that he didn't think too highly of the murder?

Cheers,
P.

Hi Phoebus,

You made me look it up! For a minute I thought I'd conflated the sources with one of those popular myths again. This is Arrian -

Arrian - section 3.21.6-22.2 wrote:Alexander himself then started off again at dusk with all the speed he could make, and covering some eighty kilometers in the course of the night, came up with the Persians just as dawn was breaking.

They were straggling along unarmed; only a few made any offer of resistance; most of them incontinently fled the moment they saw it was Alexander himself who was upon them. Those who attempted to fight also made off after losing a few men. Bessus and his friends did not at once abandon the attempt to get Darius away in the wagon, but when Alexander was close upon them, Nabarzanes and Barsaentes struck him down and left him and made their escape with 600 horsemen. The wound proved fatal, and Darius died shortly afterwards, before Alexander could see him.

Alexander sent Darius' body to Persepolis to be buried in the royal tombs, like the kings before him. [...] Such was the end of Darius; he died in July, during the archonship of Aristophon in Athens.

Take care