pothos.org

Per recorded history, Barsine was given to Alexander as a gift, schooled in Greek, and was likely acquainted with Alexander from his childhood. She was probably a very strong woman. This seems likely enough, having outlived two extremely capable Greek commanders for husbands. That fact alone, would indicate that this woman was well versed in military power plays and more than capable of weaving intrigue. But, accordingly, these combined elements were just a little too convenient and...perfect for a spy. She simply could not be trusted. She was likely placed at Alexander's side for the sole purpose of getting information on him. It is unlikely that Alexander truly loved her. It is very likely that he went through the motions and put on a show of emotional attachment to disguise his almost certain knowledge of her true intentions. Aristander, truly his most trusted advisor, would have seen through this ploy from the start and likely informed Alexander that she, indeed, this whole charade, could not be trusted. With this ploy at his disposal, Alexander was now in position to use Barsine to plant false information. Whatever happened behind the scenes during those months, she was eventually left behind, albeit...with child, while Alexander marched on.

We would like to know more about the relationship between Parmenion and Artabazus...surely, these two extremely powerful men, one the top (and soon to be demoted and forcibly deceased) general in Alexander's army and the man that gifted him Barsine, the other the father of Barsine, both virtually equal in political stature, were well acquainted with one another from the old days. How was it that Parmenion was allowed to 'gift' this highborn Persian-Greek two time widow, daughter of an important Persian diplomat, to Alexander? Was a conspiracy already underfoot?

Nicator wrote:Per recorded history, Barsine was given to Alexander as a gift,

I'd dispute this. She was a spoil of war and was sent to Alexander by Parmenion as exactly that.

Nicator wrote: ... and was likely acquainted with Alexander from his childhood.

I have often wondered about this. When Artabazus and his family were in Macedonia, Alexander was a very young child. I don't know enough about the role of children, but although many people say that they might have known each other, it is equally likely, judging from the usual practice of the sequestation of young children, that Barsine might never have come into contact with Alexander.[/quote]

Nicator wrote:She was probably a very strong woman. This seems likely enough, having outlived two extremely capable Greek commanders for husbands. That fact alone, would indicate that this woman was well versed in military power plays and more than capable of weaving intrigue.

Unless you consider her a pawn and nothing more. As the daughter of an influential Persian, she was probably well-regarded. As the wife of a Greek, however, one would expect her to have been kept out of sight and there is no reason to assume that she was party to any political, military or any other important discussion. Therefore, her knowledge and therefore her importance (in respect of information) might well be over-exaggerated.

Nicator wrote:But, accordingly, these combined elements were just a little too convenient and...perfect for a spy. She simply could not be trusted.

However, following from the above, there is no reason why she should have been accorded any importance whatsoever.

Nicator wrote:She was likely placed at Alexander's side for the sole purpose of getting information on him.

Information for whom? Parmenion sent her to Alexander, not the Persians. And to whom was she to communicate her information? And what information would she gain, as she wouldn't have been involved in military or other discussions?

Nicator wrote:It is unlikely that Alexander truly loved her. It is very likely that he went through the motions and put on a show of emotional attachment to disguise his almost certain knowledge of her true intentions.

There's no evidence for this. Of course, her "true intentions" depend on whether one believes what she was there for, and we have no reason to think that she was there for any reason other than to warm Alexander's bed, and possibly (probably?) providing Alexander with an "in" to the Persian high command once Darius was defeated. In fact, it seems more likely to me that Alexander saw the opportunities of using her once she was in her power, rather than that others saw a way of using her against Alexander.

Judging by Alexander's seeming general indifference to sex, it seems to me that for him to carry her around, father a child on her, and for that child to have had even the slightest chance of inheriting Alexander's empire (although, admittedly, it was only Nearchus who proposed this and the idea was dismissed almost out of hand), he must have held her in some regard.

Nicator wrote:Aristander, truly his most trusted advisor, would have seen through this ploy from the start and likely informed Alexander that she, indeed, this whole charade, could not be trusted. With this ploy at his disposal, Alexander was now in position to use Barsine to plant false information. Whatever happened behind the scenes during those months, she was eventually left behind, albeit...with child, while Alexander marched on.

Pure supposition, which relies on your previous points being likely which, personally, I don't think they were. The biggest problem is lack of evidence - had Barsine been a spy whom no-one trusted, would this not have come out in the sources somewhere?

I'm also not sure about calling Aristander "truly his most trusted advisor". He was important and trusted as a soothsayer, but we don't know that he had any other role or relevance (unless you believe those rubbish pieces of nonsensical fiction by Paul Docherty).

Nicator wrote:We would like to know more about the relationship between Parmenion and Artabazus...surely, these two extremely powerful men, one the top (and soon to be demoted and forcibly deceased) general in Alexander's army and the man that gifted him Barsine, the other the father of Barsine, both virtually equal in political stature, were well acquainted with one another from the old days. How was it that Parmenion was allowed to 'gift' this highborn Persian-Greek two time widow, daughter of an important Persian diplomat, to Alexander? Was a conspiracy already underfoot?

Well, see above. Artabazus didn't "gift" Barsine to Parmenion in order that Parmenion "gift" her to Alexander. We don't know the extent to which Artabazus and Parmenion were acquainted - although they almost certainly were. The idea of a conspiracy is also predicated on the assumption that Parmenion was implicated in a conspiracy towards Alexander - which even Alexander's apologists found great difficulty in proving.

It's a nice theory, but I worry that there is no historical substance behind it. Sorry!

ATB

Greetings Marcus,
Many of your points are valid but try not to overlook the possibilities in favor of accepted dogma. There is little historical evidence for any of my suppositions. The theory relies upon timeline and the most likely scenario produced from political & familial connections.

marcus wrote:I'd dispute this. She was a spoil of war and was sent to Alexander by Parmenion as exactly that.

It could have been that she was given as a simple 'spoil of war' gift. But her background as the daughter of a very important Persian political figure and her two time Greek commander widow status implies there was something else going on here. Even if Parmenion was trustworthy, I don't buy the theory that she was just a spoil of war. Sorry, I'm sticking to my guns on this one.

marcus wrote:Therefore, her knowledge and therefore her importance (in respect of information) might well be over-exaggerated.

I think the point I'm trying to make here is that her knowledge AND importance were UNDER-exaggerated. We already know of the mistress of Philotas being suborned by Alexander. Could this be a fairplay turnaround on the house of Parmenion?

marcus wrote:Information for whom? Parmenion sent her to Alexander, not the Persians. And to whom was she to communicate her information? And what information would she gain, as she wouldn't have been involved in military or other discussions?

I guess you subscribe to the Hammond predication that Parmenion and Alexander were 'friends'? I think that is a supposition that we cannot afford and I am certainly not going to give it credence here. That they were enemies cannot be inferred either. At least not at this stage of the campaign. Was Parmenion beginning to plan for the future? Let's just call them 'professional acquaintances' for now and try to understand what was happening behind the scenes. I think Parmenion was too powerful and intelligent to make a mistake here by giving this particular Persian woman to Alexander. I also think it's too simple minded to assume that Parmenion arranged this little tryst without having some duality of purpose. But this whole post is a supposition based on what could have been. The sources do not supply adequate argument to deny anything that I've stated. It just seems to be overlooked.

marcus wrote:Nicator wrote:
It is unlikely that Alexander truly loved her. It is very likely that he went through the motions and put on a show of emotional attachment to disguise his almost certain knowledge of her true intentions.


There's no evidence for this. Of course, her "true intentions" depend on whether one believes what she was there for, and we have no reason to think that she was there for any reason other than to warm Alexander's bed, and possibly (probably?) providing Alexander with an "in" to the Persian high command once Darius was defeated. In fact, it seems more likely to me that Alexander saw the opportunities of using her once she was in her power, rather than that others saw a way of using her against Alexander.

I just provided a reason to 'believe' that her placement was set in motion by others with ulterior motives. It does seem clear that Alexander used her...one way or another. She unwittingly became his pawn to use against those who sought his demise.

I would further insinuate that Barsine was likely suborned by the Persian high command earlier to spy on the Greek commanders.

marcus wrote:Judging by Alexander's seeming general indifference to sex, it seems to me that for him to carry her around, father a child on her, and for that child to have had even the slightest chance of inheriting Alexander's empire (although, admittedly, it was only Nearchus who proposed this and the idea was dismissed almost out of hand), he must have held her in some regard.

Judging by Alexander's seeming general indifference to sex

I think the view of Alexander as 'uninterested in sex' is misplaced. The evidence suggests a man that was driven by a passion to conquer. It might be fair to say that his primary motives were to gain an empire...but we cannot say that this precludes a desire for sex. What I haven't heard asked (and maybe we should be asking...) is why would Parmenion gift this particular woman to Alexander and why would Alexander agree to it. If Alexander already suspected Parmenion's motives, then why not use it to his own advantage?

As for the status of her child...that he was left a bastard and not even remotely considered a viable candidate for the throne indicates a possibility that Alexander's close associates may have been aware of Barsine's status as I would allege, a failed spy. Nearchus, being younger, may not have been aware of her true status. Who knows...it's speculation. But a speculation that, for me at least, fills in some of the gaps.

marcus wrote:Nicator wrote:
Aristander, truly his most trusted advisor, would have seen through this ploy from the start and likely informed Alexander that she, indeed, this whole charade, could not be trusted. With this ploy at his disposal, Alexander was now in position to use Barsine to plant false information. Whatever happened behind the scenes during those months, she was eventually left behind, albeit...with child, while Alexander marched on.


Pure supposition, which relies on your previous points being likely which, personally, I don't think they were. The biggest problem is lack of evidence - had Barsine been a spy whom no-one trusted, would this not have come out in the sources somewhere?

I'm also not sure about calling Aristander "truly his most trusted advisor". He was important and trusted as a soothsayer, but we don't know that he had any other role or relevance (unless you believe those rubbish pieces of nonsensical fiction by Paul Docherty).

Why would a tightly held piece of intel such as a spy's status have been released for public consumption...? Surely, no source would be privy to this kind of information.

Aristander's importance was perhaps as understated as any in Alexander's cadre of advisors. And, like his understated interest in sex...Alexander's adherence to the mystical was also greatly under-exaggerated.

As far as historical fiction of any kind...I don't read it, nor have I used it to form this theory. Nor am I familiar with Paul Docherty.

marcus wrote:Well, see above. Artabazus didn't "gift" Barsine to Parmenion in order that Parmenion "gift" her to Alexander.

Please read my post more carefully...

these two extremely powerful men, one the top (and soon to be demoted and forcibly deceased) general in Alexander's army and the man that gifted him Barsine, the other the father of Barsine

The important part is the relationship of Artabazus & Parmenion. It hasn't been talked about in any of the sources that I'm familiar with. I think it's been completely overlooked as even a supposition. This was meant to, and indeed, should provoke thought. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of regurgitating source material without predicating the implications.

Nicator wrote:It could have been that she was given as a simple 'spoil of war' gift. But her background as the daughter of a very important Persian political figure and her two time Greek commander widow status implies there was something else going on here. Even if Parmenion was trustworthy, I don't buy the theory that she was just a spoil of war. Sorry, I'm sticking to my guns on this one.

But I don't imagine that Parmenion had much choice in the matter - it's not as if he would have been able to pick and choose which of the captive women he would send. If he hadn't, and Alexander discovered that he had kept her away (and there is no doubt that he would have discovered), well ...

Nicator wrote:

marcus wrote:Therefore, her knowledge and therefore her importance (in respect of information) might well be over-exaggerated.

I think the point I'm trying to make here is that her knowledge AND importance were UNDER-exaggerated. We already know of the mistress of Philotas being suborned by Alexander. Could this be a fairplay turnaround on the house of Parmenion?

Nah, I don't buy that. As far as Antigone is concerned, she was loose with her tongue, and when Alexander's friends heard what she had been saying about what Philotas had been saying, they reported it to Alexander, who then instructed her to continue passing on her information. That's different from planting a spy in the household with the intention of garnering secrets to pass on. I cannot buy that one.

Nicator wrote:I guess you subscribe to the Hammond predication that Parmenion and Alexander were 'friends'? I think that is a supposition that we cannot afford and I am certainly not going to give it credence here.

Not necessarily; but there isn't anything to indicate that they weren't. Parmenion had supported Alexander in 336 when he had the opportunity to oppose his accession and he didn't take it, and even connived at the execution/assassination of his son-in-law. Nothing since then gave Parmenion any reason to spy on Alexander. Anyway, whether they were friends or enemies, putting Barsine in as a spy for the Persians suggests that Parmenion would have been in league with the Persians. Why? And if he was, then he had plenty of opportunities to capitalise on that and bring Alexander down, not least at Issus itself (before Barsine was captured) or at Gaugamela, and that's just in the set-piece battles.

Nicator wrote: I think Parmenion was too powerful and intelligent to make a mistake here by giving this particular Persian woman to Alexander. I also think it's too simple minded to assume that Parmenion arranged this little tryst without having some duality of purpose. But this whole post is a supposition based on what could have been. The sources do not supply adequate argument to deny anything that I've stated. It just seems to be overlooked.

Like I said, as if Parmenion had any choice but to hand her on to Alexander.

Nicator wrote:I just provided a reason to 'believe' that her placement was set in motion by others with ulterior motives. It does seem clear that Alexander used her...one way or another. She unwittingly became his pawn to use against those who sought his demise.

I would further insinuate that Barsine was likely suborned by the Persian high command earlier to spy on the Greek commanders.

I can't buy all of this. So now, with absolutely no evidence, we have Barsine being "placed" to spy on Alexander and feed back information - goodness knows how - to the Persian high command. Alexander discovers this and deliberately feeds her false information in order to wrong-foot the Persians. The next question is: what false information did she feed them? The last (and indeed only) time she could have provided anything useful would have been about A's proposed movements once he left Egypt, but by the time Alexander left Egypt Darius had already taken his army north to Gaugamela, and Alexander marched to meet him there. If Darius had gone north based on false information, what was Alexander actually intending to do? Go straight to Babylon? So why didn't he do it, rather than marching to meet Darius?

Between Issus and Gaugamela, Alexander spent months besieging Tyre, and then Gaza. During that time, what did the Persians do that suggests that they were acting on false information from Alexander?

Nicator wrote:I think the view of Alexander as 'uninterested in sex' is misplaced. The evidence suggests a man that was driven by a passion to conquer. It might be fair to say that his primary motives were to gain an empire...but we cannot say that this precludes a desire for sex.

We have quite a few ancient authors who stress this. Clearly he wasn't totally uninterested; but when one considers that his known relationships with women prior to Barsine are relatively few, and certainly without issue, he wasn't exactly promiscuous.

Nicator wrote:What I haven't heard asked (and maybe we should be asking...) is why would Parmenion gift this particular woman to Alexander and why would Alexander agree to it. If Alexander already suspected Parmenion's motives, then why not use it to his own advantage?

As before - not exactly a choice.

Nicator wrote:As for the status of her child...that he was left a bastard and not even remotely considered a viable candidate for the throne indicates a possibility that Alexander's close associates may have been aware of Barsine's status as I would allege, a failed spy. Nearchus, being younger, may not have been aware of her true status. Who knows...it's speculation. But a speculation that, for me at least, fills in some of the gaps.

I don't know about Nearchus being "younger" - where do you get that? He is generally considered to have been a few years older than Alexander. And I would say that Heracles' bastardy probably had much more to do with the reluctance to treat him as a viable heir, especially when Roxane was on the verge of giving him a legitimate one.

Nicator wrote:Why would a tightly held piece of intel such as a spy's status have been released for public consumption...? Surely, no source would be privy to this kind of information.

Well, as you have already said:

Nicator wrote:... a possibility that Alexander's close associates may have been aware of Barsine's status as I would allege, a failed spy ...

I would ask why Ptolemy, especially writing after Alexander's death, didn't report it. After all, if she had failed in her intrigue and Alexander had been clever enough to see through it and then use her as an unwitting double agent, I would have thought that Ptolemy would have been wetting himself in his excitement about telling us all about how clever his chum was.

Nicator wrote:Aristander's importance was perhaps as understated as any in Alexander's cadre of advisors. And, like his understated interest in sex...Alexander's adherence to the mystical was also greatly under-exaggerated.

But why would a soothsayer have anything to do with Alexander's decision to leak false intelligence (for which there is no evidence, anyway, either in the source material or indeed in the sequence of events) to the enemy. Aristander's job was reading entrails and interpreting dreams. We hear of him doing nothing else, and intelligence comes under a military jurisdiction, so it would not have concerned him.

Nicator wrote:As far as historical fiction of any kind...I don't read it, nor have I used it to form this theory. Nor am I familiar with Paul Docherty.

Please don't think I was suggesting that you did. In Docherty appalling rubbish he happens to have Aristander as some sort of perfumed fop who is in charge of Alexander's intelligence network. I have far too high a regard for you to consider that you might be taken in by such unmitigated nonsense as Docherty's novels; but it was amusing that it sort of fitted in with the thread.

Nicator wrote:

marcus wrote:Well, see above. Artabazus didn't "gift" Barsine to Parmenion in order that Parmenion "gift" her to Alexander.

Please read my post more carefully...

Apologies, I have re-read and I see what you actually said. However, my earlier point stands. To begin with you are saying that Barsine was placed to feed back intelligence to the Persians, which did rather presume that, therefore, Parmenion must have been in league with the Persians, and therefore "gifted" Barsine to Alexander in order to achieve this end. But I have attempted to show how this must surely not have been the case, not least because Parmenion had no choice but to send Barsine to Alexander. (Just as, when it comes down to it, Antigone didn't really have much choice in whether she continued to betray Philotas, once his indiscretions were known to Alexander. Would you have said "sorry, guv, not interested"?)

Nicator wrote:The important part is the relationship of Artabazus & Parmenion. It hasn't been talked about in any of the sources that I'm familiar with. I think it's been completely overlooked as even a supposition. This was meant to, and indeed, should provoke thought. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of regurgitating source material without predicating the implications.

I'm slightly offended that you appear to be accusing me of simply regurgitating source material. Even if that wasn't your intention (as I'm sure it wasn't), the source material is what we have, and when there is so little upon which to hang a theory I think we need to be extremely cautious about the theory.

ATB

marcus wrote:But I don't imagine that Parmenion had much choice in the matter - it's not as if he would have been able to pick and choose which of the captive women he would send. If he hadn't, and Alexander discovered that he had kept her away (and there is no doubt that he would have discovered), well ...

What strikes me is that Parmenion 'presented' Barsine to Alexander. There were many captives in this war. Parmenion certainly had a choice to present or not to present this particular woman. And if I recall correctly, she was presented with the caveat that "She would be good for you". If your whole antithesis of this theory hinges on the argument that Parmenion 'didn't' have a choice, then I think the theory is still valid.

As I've already more or less stated, this theory is based on circumstantial evidence. And until it is proven wrong, beyond the lack of source material as a direct reference, it should be taken seriously.

I don't have time to get into all the other points concerning Parmenion's help in the accession of Alexander and your feelings concerning Antigone. I've stated some things that could be true and that shouldn't be so quickly denied out of turn without at least considering them carefully. The constant blabbing of Philotas in itself indicates some consternation between the house of Parmenion and Alexander. Parmenion had his own selfish designs on power and his backing of Alexander could have just been because he saw the writing on the wall and decided to lean in that direction for his own future and self preservation. And yes, I am suggesting that at this time of the campaign, on some exploratory level, Parmenion may have been in conversation with the Persians...Particularly with the nearly complete doctrine of Philip concerning the annex of Asian Minor. Of course, it could also be that Parmenion had nothing to do with any of that and that Barsine's placement was simply fortuitous, as the Persians were likely eager to exploit any potential weakness. Something was going on here and Parmenion's quixotic involvement seems problematic.

marcus wrote:I would ask why Ptolemy, especially writing after Alexander's death, didn't report it. After all, if she had failed in her intrigue and Alexander had been clever enough to see through it and then use her as an unwitting double agent, I would have thought that Ptolemy would have been wetting himself in his excitement about telling us all about how clever his chum was.

I don't think it took too much 'cleverness' to figure out the danger of bringing a Persian woman of this rank into his bed. And if Alexander was already seeing warning signs about Parmenion this one certainly should have rang a full on emergency siren. Though, you point about Ptolemy NOT bringing it up is valid...kinda of funny too, I guess.

marcus wrote: can't buy all of this. So now, with absolutely no evidence, we have Barsine being "placed" to spy on Alexander and feed back information - goodness knows how - to the Persian high command. Alexander discovers this and deliberately feeds her false information in order to wrong-foot the Persians. The next question is: what false information did she feed them? The last (and indeed only) time she could have provided anything useful would have been about A's proposed movements once he left Egypt, but by the time Alexander left Egypt Darius had already taken his army north to Gaugamela, and Alexander marched to meet him there. If Darius had gone north based on false information, what was Alexander actually intending to do? Go straight to Babylon? So why didn't he do it, rather than marching to meet Darius?

Between Issus and Gaugamela, Alexander spent months besieging Tyre, and then Gaza. During that time, what did the Persians do that suggests that they were acting on false information from Alexander?

As mentioned above, the evidence is circumstantial. Take it or leave it. If this intel got out, who is to say the Persians decided to act on any of it. The best they could do would be to use it to try and figure out Alexander's intentions. And even then, to take it for what it was...potentially falsified intel from a woman that was potentially compromised.

marcus wrote:I'm slightly offended that you appear to be accusing me of simply regurgitating source material. Even if that wasn't your intention (as I'm sure it wasn't), the source material is what we have, and when there is so little upon which to hang a theory I think we need to be extremely cautious about the theory.

My apologies in return Marcus. I was slightly offended that you implied that I hadn't thought about all of the things that you mentioned in your reply. As always, I appreciate your candor and input. I am merely pointing out that the source material points us in the direction of rote facts (at least the ones that were written down and not scrubbed for political correctness)...it is up to us to translate them and interpret the possibilities. Something may have been overlooked here...the circumstances dictate that we take a closer look. Particularly in light of the demise of Parmenion, his son, Mentor & Memnon, Artabazus' status, Barsine & later, her son's status, and as you pointed out, the near total smackdown of Nearchus' suggestion. You actually made this theory stronger in my mind...and until proven wrong, my theory stands and I stand by it. Parmenion controlled everything...but he could not control Alexander the Great. This was perhaps the old general's greatest and only true failure.

It's difficult to say the extent of Alexander's trust and relationship with Aristander. At least early on, Alexander appears to have trusted him & his vision implicitly. How this 'trust' became maligned as Alexander himself lost his balance (reference his mindset in India before the near fatal bolt in the chest) is impossible to know. I would venture to say that the two of them had great respect for each other's seemingly pre-cognitive abilities. There's a story here that has not been told. As a side note, it seems funny that you mention this author that talked of Aristander controlling armies of intel agents...who else better to control that type of staff than a prophet that should have the ability to see the future and catch problems before they happen. I wonder if there's a historical precedence here other than in the Alexander genre...I have read that the soothesayers of the oracle's, in and around Greece, during, and even well before this period, would use the modern day equivalent of private investigators to figure things out for more accurate prophecies for their inquiring followers.

I would very much agree with Marcus’ position here. Parmenion did not ‘gift’ Barsine to Alexander. She was captured at Damascus along with the main Persian baggage train which Darius had left behind there before Issus. This included the wives and children of the Persian commanders, possibly Darius’s harem, and a great deal treasure. Alexander sent Parmenion to Damascus to secure the baggage train, so ipso facto nothing in it was his to give to Alexander in the first place.

Plutarch says that Parmenion instigated the affair between Alexander and Barsine. His slightly salacious twist on the incident appears to show Alexander in something of a quandary as to which of the Persian captives, ‘a torment to the eyes’, he should choose for himself. The other captured women would appear to have been parcelled out among his officers and there would have been an expectation that they were the legitimate spoils of war in which Alexander should partake.

Should Alexander take Darius’s wife as his concubine? Parmenion appears to have presented Barsine as a suitable alternative that would not irreconcilably prejudice any attempt at negotiations with Darius. The great-granddaughter of a Great King, Barsine was almost royal. As she was a widow, Alexander would not be a despoiler of virgins (Darius’s daughters), nor would there be any avenging husband to worry about. The territory she hailed from was already in Alexander’s hands, so there would be no worry about prejudicing any Persian who might consider capitulating to Alexander. And as the widow of a Greek mercenary, her fate would send a message to any Greek thinking of fighting against Alexander. It looks very much like the choice of Barsine as Alexander’s mistress was a careful, political and public decision, instigated by Parmenion as Alexander’s senior advisor who, having had the women in his charge for some time before he rejoined Alexander, would have had the opportunity to assess the best candidate. His choice doesn’t need any private justification.

Also, given that it was five years before she bore Alexander a child, they may not have had much of a relationship to begin with, but, as Marcus says, it’s difficult to imagine what bedroom secrets she could have passed on to Parmenion that would have been of any use to him. Or how, or why, Parmenion would have passed on any information to Artabazus. Artabazus certainly wouldn’t appear to have made any use of anything he did know.

It is also highly unlikely that Parmenion had anything to do with Artabazus and his seven sons surrendering to Alexander at Zadracarta as he had been left behind in Ecbatana at the time, guarding Alexander’s supply line as satrap of Media. Yet Barsine may have acted as a mediator between Alexander and her father. Other than that though, it is difficult to imagine what role she may have played, except, in the absence of a wife, she may have ruled Alexander’s household. It is interesting that Alexander appears to have sent her and Heracles back to Pergamon either around the time he married Roxane, or when the decision to enter India was taken, but there is no indication that she fell from grace at the same time as Parmenion. Rather, she had served her purpose for Alexander and was probably getting past child-bearing age. I would also suggest that the reason her son wasn’t accepted as Alexander’s heir was, apart from any doubt about his paternity, that the army couldn’t forgive or forget the fact that she was a Greek mercenary’s widow twice over, and that she was merely a captive, effectively a slave, and not a free woman. There is quite enough room for imaginative speculation here without the need to reinvent her as a spy.

Greetings Alexias,
Unlike Marcus, I don't believe I have had the pleasure of meeting you. Thank you for your well researched reply.

Alexias wrote:I would very much agree with Marcus’ position here. Parmenion did not ‘gift’ Barsine to Alexander. She was captured at Damascus along with the main Persian baggage train which Darius had left behind there before Issus. This included the wives and children of the Persian commanders, possibly Darius’s harem, and a great deal treasure. Alexander sent Parmenion to Damascus to secure the baggage train, so ipso facto nothing in it was his to give to Alexander in the first place.

But again, I freely admit that this is not based on the written word...only circumstantial evidence. And I still haven't read anything that could credibly undermine the theory. A large hoard of treasure and captives were taken...including Barsine. This is not under question. It is also understood that Parmenion was delivering the captives to his king. Since the entire hoard was already the property of Alexander, Parmenion would have been just giving Alexander his property back. But this is irrelevant posturing. The timeline and circumstances surrounding this incident have been completely ignored or as I have suggested...simply overlooked. Please come up with something convincing that refutes the theory.

I am simply troubled by Parmenion's involvement at this level...particularly after, as you pointed out, Barsine had been in his care for some time.

Alexias wrote:It looks very much like the choice of Barsine as Alexander’s mistress was a careful, political and public decision, instigated by Parmenion as Alexander’s senior advisor who, having had the women in his charge for some time before he rejoined Alexander, would have had the opportunity to assess the best candidate. His choice doesn’t need any private justification.

I am even more unnerved by her political position and status. Certainly, a safer choice could have been made to prevent sedition. If Parmenion was innocent...What was he thinking? If not innocent...?

Enough said about this...take it for what it is and please try to be more open minded to the implications that I have elucidated beyond what you have read in the compilation materials.

Otherwise, excellent reply...and again, nice meeting you.

Thank you for your reply, Nicator. I somewhat object to being told rather patronisingly to be more open-minded; you know nothing about me. The onus is upon you to provide proof from the sources to support your theory, rather than mere supposition. As far as I can see the only proof you have of Barsine having acted as a spy - for anyone - is the correlation of Philotas's mistress's revelations, which were simply the passing on of boastful gossip. Boasting was an occupational hazard among the Macedonian soldiery and as Alexander did nothing about Philotas's words he appears to have treated the incident as harmless. If he had been paranoid he would have done something about it, but the fact that he didn't indicates that he was fairly secure in Philotas', and Parmenion's, loyalty.

BTW, you have yet to state what Barsine would have gained by spying on Alexander for Parmenion. Why would she have bothered when she could have used any information she gained for her own ends? She had no debt to Parmenion to repay.

Nicator wrote:The timeline and circumstances surrounding this incident have been completely ignored or as I have suggested...simply overlooked. Please come up with something convincing that refutes the theory.

Problem is, I'm not sure I know what you want to hear. As far as I can tell, both Alexias and I have provided quite enough to refute the theory - at least as much, if not more, than you have to support it! I don't think we have ignored the timeline and circumstances at all, nor overlooked them - we have both referred repeatedly to the circumstances of Barsine coming to Alexander, and I made quite detailed references to the chronology when discussing why I could not see how Barsine could have been passing on false (or true) intelligence to the Persians.

I really don't know what else you expect from us.

Nicator wrote:I am simply troubled by Parmenion's involvement at this level...particularly after, as you pointed out, Barsine had been in his care for some time.

Alexias might have said something to this effect, but I'm not sure I agree. What do you mean by "in his care for some time"? As far as we know, Parmenion took Damascus and gathered together the spoils, and immediately sent Barsine to Alexander. He might not have done, but it can only have been a couple of weeks at most before she ended up with Alexander.

Nicator wrote:I am even more unnerved by her political position and status. Certainly, a safer choice could have been made to prevent sedition. If Parmenion was innocent...What was he thinking? If not innocent...?

I think Alexias' evaluation of the political thinking behind Barsine becoming Alexander's mistress was extremely well put, and covered all the considerations very effectively. Much better than I had done! But again, you see, you say "a safer choice could have been made to prevent sedition", but what sedition was there, therefore, following Alexander's adoption of Barsine as his mistress?

I have to say that I'm not comfortable with you calling your theory one based on "circumstantial evidence". This would imply that there is some evidence, but as you yourself have said, there is not. It's a theory based on trying to rationalise events that do appear to have large gaps as far as our existing evidence is concerned. But at the moment there is no circumstantial evidence to support it, either.

We might as well be having a discussion about whether Porus instructed Cleophis to seduce Alexander to keep him amongst the Assacenians, to give Porus enough time to gather his army together at the Hydaspes.

Please don't get me wrong - I'm enjoying the discussion and I actually do rather like your theory. I don't agree with it, however, and I will argue against it for as long as this goes on; but it's an interesting debate.

ATB

marcus wrote:Alexias might have said something to this effect, but I'm not sure I agree. What do you mean by "in his care for some time"? As far as we know, Parmenion took Damascus and gathered together the spoils, and immediately sent Barsine to Alexander. He might not have done, but it can only have been a couple of weeks at most before she ended up with Alexander.

I simply meant however long it took Parmenion to get Damascus under control, evaluate the situation, find out what Alexander wanted doing with the spoils, and any travelling involved. As you say, it wouldn't have been any considerable length of time, but probably more than a few days.

I had a problem with the use of the word advisor when describing Aristander. But would the line have been blurred a bit between the "soothsayer" and "advisor" in the time of Alexander?

( "Unless you believe those rubbish pieces of nonsensical fiction by Paul Docherty." thank you Marcus! That's the best description I've heard yet!)

Alexias wrote:

marcus wrote:Alexias might have said something to this effect, but I'm not sure I agree. What do you mean by "in his care for some time"? As far as we know, Parmenion took Damascus and gathered together the spoils, and immediately sent Barsine to Alexander. He might not have done, but it can only have been a couple of weeks at most before she ended up with Alexander.

I simply meant however long it took Parmenion to get Damascus under control, evaluate the situation, find out what Alexander wanted doing with the spoils, and any travelling involved. As you say, it wouldn't have been any considerable length of time, but probably more than a few days.

Ah, I see. Yes, probably not too long, but probably more than a few days.

It has to be said - and this is the sort of problem that Nicator is referring to which underpins his theory - that the chronology of the Levantine campaign is incomplete. We know roughly when the siege of Tyre was, and we know when the battle of Issus was; but things such as the timing of Parmenion's movements are more difficult to gauge. Damascus is around 200 miles (or is it km?) from Issus, therefore it would have taken him more than a couple of days to arrive there after the battle. Alexander is then moving down into Phoenicia, and at some point Parmenion sends him the spoils. And Parmenion, if I recall correctly (I'm at work so have no books) is appointed satrap of Coele-Syria at some point, as well.

I'd need to be at home to be able to set out the chronological obfuscation properly, but it certainly isn't entirely cut and dried. (Not that this means that I'm starting to agree with Nicator, however! ).

Spitamenes:

Spitamenes wrote: thank you Marcus! That's the best description I've heard yet!

Thank you! I won't tell you what I wanted to write, as this is a public forum and I like to think I have at least some decent reputation to maintain ...

ATB

spitamenes wrote:I had a problem with the use of the word advisor when describing Aristander. But would the line have been blurred a bit between the "soothsayer" and "advisor" in the time of Alexander?

Personally, I think they should be kept separate. Admittedly, the soothsayer does provide advice - for example, when Aristander declares that the omens for crossing the Jaxartes are unpropitious. But he wouldn't be involved in discussions about military strategy or even political tactics (e.g. the reply to the letter from Darius) in his role as a soothsayer. He might be involved in those as an intelligent man whose counsel Alexander valued; but I can't really reconcile to myself this idea of Aristander as some great panjandrum. He was a soothsayer, who interpreted dreams and omens. There is no reason for us to give him another role.

(And yes, the reason I say that is that there is no indication in those pesky sources that he did so. But if we don't use the sources for something they might as well not be there, in which case there's no point in having any of these discussions in the first place ...)

ATB

The assertion by Alexias that she would have been in Parmenion's care for a period of months was a surprise to me as well (I think several weeks, if I recall correctly). Nonetheless, I don't think this is very important. I don't expect anything more from you than what I received. After sleeping on it, I wanted to make a few points about the circumstances (and thus, the circumstantial evidence).

1. Barsine was a Persian through and through.
2. Barsine was connected to the Persian high command structure by blood ties.
3. Barsine was only very recently widowed by Memnon...an enemy of Alexander. So recent that it boggles the mind that she could switch allegiances in the time period involved.
4. Barsine was twice married to Greek commanders loyal to Persia. So long as the Greeks remained 'loyal', they kept their heads. We know of the extreme paranoia demonstrated by the Persians concerning Greek commanders. Was not Barsine used, at least in some fashion, by Persia to keep tabs on her husbands? And, since she'd already served this role for most of her adult life...why stop now? And what about the extreme racial hatred between the Greeks and Macedononians? I'm sure Barsine had enough time to become well acquainted with it, and thus, even perhaps sympathetic or even fully transferred over to it.
5. Memnon's sudden death, so convenient on the heels of such a significant defeat at Hallicarnassus. According to the sources...by sickness. Wasn't this priceless bit of intel somewhat dubious?
6. Persia was on its heels but not knocked out yet. Barsine would have no reason to back Alexander...yet.
7. Parmenion likely had his own agenda. As long as it didn't run counter to Alexander's goals, Alexander certainly tolerated it.

Wouldn't it be naive to assume that Barsine would switch loyalties from country & kin...ever? But especially while her own country was reeling under the weight of the Macedonian advance. Wouldn't it also be naive to just give Parmenion the benefit of a doubt as to the level of his devotion to Alexander. Was it 100% to Alexander or maybe...65% to Alexander...what was it? I'd be willing to concede that Parmenion's involvement here for any reason could be just what it seems to be...circumstantial. But Barsine's involvement is too perfect.

I would add to re-read points 1-4: Persian, related by blood to the high command, loyalties to her former husband intact, and already used for intel by Persia.

Earlier it was asked...to whom was she spying? I think it could have been a little bit of both. But primarily, her intel was meant for Persia. Parmenion's involvement at this stage was less certain. My feelings are that Parmenion and Artabazus were long time acquainted from the days of Philip II. What role this relationship had in this conspiracy theory would be fun to ponder. Artabazus' role as a foreign dignitary was essentially to keep tabs on foreign rulers and thus gage their intentions. I.e...this was the role of an overt spy. (Ha! overt, sorry...but I couldn't help myself). Nevertheless, Barsine had quite a pedigree before she ever came into Alexander's care.

Alexias mentioned in his closing statement that we didn't need to reinvent Barsine. My argument here would be that haven't we 'invented' Barsine already by the 'accepted' theory of her life and importance? The events surrounding most of this genre can be interpreted any number of ways due to the scanty and conflicted source material.

So, I'm sorry guys, but I still haven't seen anything that would run counter to the theory. Granted, its plausibility rests totally on circumstantial evidence. But this 'circumstantial evidence' appears to be overwhelming. And I would point out that the evidence pointed out by your counterpoints are equally leveraged in the circumstantial evidence category...though, not was powerful in implication.

Alexias wrote:Thank you for your reply, Nicator. I somewhat object to being told rather patronisingly to be more open-minded; you know nothing about me. The onus is upon you to provide proof from the sources to support your theory, rather than mere supposition. As far as I can see the only proof you have of Barsine having acted as a spy - for anyone - is the correlation of Philotas's mistress's revelations, which were simply the passing on of boastful gossip. Boasting was an occupational hazard among the Macedonian soldiery and as Alexander did nothing about Philotas's words he appears to have treated the incident as harmless. If he had been paranoid he would have done something about it, but the fact that he didn't indicates that he was fairly secure in Philotas', and Parmenion's, loyalty.

BTW, you have yet to state what Barsine would have gained by spying on Alexander for Parmenion. Why would she have bothered when she could have used any information she gained for her own ends? She had no debt to Parmenion to repay.

This is an excellent point. I don't think the issue here was any 'debt' to be repaid. The carrot on the end of the stick here was the promise of her family's safety and status if she cooperated (in, during, and after the coup). But, like I said before, because of the timeline, Parmenion's involvement is less certain. Though he certainly had his own agenda, and Philota's told us all about it through his mistress, any sedition at this stage was far from the ultimate endgame where the House of Parmenion came crashing down.

Because Alexander did nothing right away could just be indicative that he was gathering evidence for the ultimate endgame. Your speculation is on weak ground as Alexander obviously did NOT feel secure in their loyalty or he wouldn't have had them executed.

And I apologize for the appearance of patronizing you. That was not my intention. Your reply was well thought out and appreciated.