pothos.org

I recently picked up a book called Armies of Pestilence: The Impact of Disease on History, by R. S. Bray whom we're told is distinguished biologist. Initially I hoped it might shed some light on the frequent internet tales of Alexander's army having brought back various diseases to Europe - syphilis, smallpox and leprosy are three that I've seen repeatedly mentioned. The book doesn't broach this topic, although Bray does tell of a major historian of smallpox, D. R. Hopkins, who "wonders if Alexander's army on the Indus had contracted smallpox and plumps for smallpox for the Athenian plague." (Bray seems not to agree with him on these and other instances.) There is an interesting excerpt, however, on Alexander's army refusing to go further at the Indus: "Before one comes to the fall of the Roman Empire and the part played in those events by epidemic disease, it is necessary to examine the last great enterprise of Ancient Greece. This was the attempted harmonization of Hellenic art and culture with that of Persia and near Asia by Alexander the Great. What turned him and his army back at the banks of the Beas?, what killed him? There can be no doubt that, at the Beas , the Greeks turned back at the urgings of the Greek soldiers themselves and because they had reached the very edge of the Achaemenid Empire, but was there a medical reason for such urgings? We hear remarkably little about the health of Alexander's army from the recorders who were pupils of Aristotle. It would seem reasonable to suppose that on the banks of the Beas the Greeks would be suffering from malaria. More importantly perhaps they would be likely to be suffering the miseries of dysentery (which had carried off the Buddha at the age of 80 in India in the previous century) even if their love of cleanliness may have prevented typhus. Their allies may have been relatively immune to these local diseases which would add to the feeling of isolation and plain homesickness which afflicted this remarkable army. There is no reason to believe that Asiatic cholera would have played any part. "One may safely hazard a guess that one of the points made by the Macedonian soldiers to Alexander in favor of a return home would have been the poor health of the army as a whole. Alexander's death has been attributed to malaria, but the reasons for supposing the attribution are flimsy."Continued. . .

Now in his introduction Bray says he does not possess the necessary skills to enquire of the many primary sources and much of his enquiry uses secondary, even tertiary sources. This would explain, I think, why he has confused Alexander's obsession with cleanliness with that of the whole army and why he thinks all Alexander's biographers were pupils of Aristotle! (He also makes specific note of his use of the river Beas rather than the Indus but that isn't relevant to this discussion.) However, it is interesting to look at this from his different perspective and consider whether much of the army *was* suffering from disease when in India. Thoughts anyone? Taking this further, it's often been said here in connection with Alexander's death that there is no mention of other people having died, but frankly there is little mention of anyone else being *sick* - least of all the rank and file - and it would be unusual indeed if that were the case. There is some evidence of illness to be found though. Craterus is an exception who is mentioned by name as being sick when Alexander sent 10,000 of his troops back to Asia. "He also dispatched Polyperchon with Craterus, as the officer next in seniority to Craterus, so that in case of harm coming to Craterus on the way, since he was an invalid when sent off, they should not want a general on their route." (Arrian 7.12.4) This tells me that Craterus was a very sick man when he left if Alexander feared his dying on route, yet he obviously survived and even flourished following Alexander's death. (Plutarch also mentions a sickness of Craterus [Alexander 41.3-4] - could he possibly have been suffering from a recurring malarial infection?) As for the rest of the ten thousand, does it seem likely that *all* of them aged-out at the same time? Arrian says the number consisted of "those unfit for service from old age or any other circumstance." (7.11.12) This must surely have included men considered unable to fight because of chronic illness. Although Plutarch doesn't specify the occasion when Eurylochus of Aegae got himself falsely enrolled among the sick, (Alexander 41.5) he does say this was when Alexander was sending home his aged and infirm soldiers.Continued. . .

It isn't my intention to bring about another discussion of whether Alexander died from illness or poison (although that might happen anyway!) but to point out that although specifics are not given of sickness and/or death from disease amongst the regular army, it doesn't mean that there wasn't a fair number of such casualties.Best regards,Amyntoros

Sickness is fairly regularly mentioned in the sources. Coenus died of some disease in India, Hephaistion seems to have died of something resembling typhoid and much of the army fell ill in Gedrosia after eating tainted meat (it was among the principal causes of the large number of casualties on the desert march). Alexander himself contracted a fever whilst approaching Tarsus and dysentry whilst pursuing the Scythians.Best wishes,Andrew

Thanks Andrew - I did know this but I was trying to establish a case for more generalized sickness in the army, especially during the last few years of Alexander's life. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

Armies, at least in recent times, have been plagued with cases of std's. It raises an interesting question about what sexually transmitted diseases were prevalent in Alexanders'day, and what remedies there were.

Well, I havenGÇÖt had time to search for the citations but according to a few reputable websites it seems that some minor STDGÇÖs were referred to by Aristotle and Plato, so it follows that there were probably others although I imagine these diseases might be amongst the lesser of the armyGÇÖs concerns. Consider a regular soldier on campaign, marching constantly, often sleeping on the ground or on straw, living in close quarters and frequently in contact with horses and other animals GÇô these men werenGÇÖt able to bathe daily and even olive oil for rubbing and scraping probably wasnGÇÖt available much of the time. Infestations of head and body lice (one of the versions given for CallistheneGÇÖs death), fleas, ticks, fungal infections and scabies were probably endemic. (If I remember correctly, Nick said he climbed Mount Aronus and came back down with an infestation of scabies!) Then there were potential GÇ£foreignGÇ¥ diseases to which the Macedonians had not built up an immunity, torments of climate, local natural hazards such as poisonous snakes and plants, frequent poor diet, the unavailability of fresh, clean drinking water, etc. These battle-hardened veterans were simply amazing in that they (mostly) not only survived but seemingly thrived! Oh, I know that similar conditions apply to all campaigning armies throughout history, but survival under these circumstances combined with the constant warfare is particularly impressive when one considers the *age* of a good part of AlexanderGÇÖs army. Those ten thousand men that Alexander considered either too old or sick to continue fighting played an instrumental role in the wars that followed his death! Sometimes I look at a man in his sixties in the supermarket and I think, GÇ£he could have been fighting elephants in AlexanderGÇÖs time!GÇ¥ :-)Best regards,Amyntoros