INTRODUCTION

The invasion of India by Alexander the Great, like the first voyage of Columbus to America, was the means of opening up a new world to the knowledge of mankind. Before the great conqueror visited that remote and sequestered country, which was then thought to lie at the utmost ends of the earth, nothing was known regarding it beyond a few vague particulars mentioned by Herodotos, and such grains of truth as could be sifted from the mass of fictions which formed the staple of the treatise on India written by Ktêsias of Knidos. A comparison of this work with theIndikaof Megasthenes, which was written after the invasion, will show how entirely all real knowledge of the country was due to that event. It may even, we think, be asserted that had that invasion not taken place, the knowledge of India among the nations of the West would not have advanced much beyond where Ktêsias left it, until the maritime passage to the East by the Cape of Good Hope had been discovered.

It was early in the year 326B.C.that Alexander, fresh from the conquest of the fierce tribes of northern Afghânistân, led his army over into the plains of India by a bridge of boats, with which he had spanned the Indus a little below its junction with the Kabul river.[1]He remained in the country not more than twenty months all told, yetin that brief space he reduced the Panjâb as far as the Satlej, and the whole of the spacious valley of the lower Indus, downwards to the ocean itself. He would even have penetrated to the Ganges had his army consented to follow him, and, in the opinion of Sandrokottos, would have succeeded in adding to his empire the vast regions through which that river flows. The rapidity with which he achieved his actual conquests in the country appears all the more surprising when we take into account that at every stage of his advance he encountered a most determined resistance. The people were not only of a most martial temperament, but were at the same time inured to arms; and had they but been united and led by such a capable commander as Pôros, the Macedonian army was doomed to utter destruction. Alexander, with all his matchless strategy, could not have averted such a catastrophe; for what is the record of his Indian campaigns? We find that the toughest of all his battles was that which he fought on the banks of the Hydaspes against Pôros; that he had hot work in overcoming the resistance of the Kathaians before the walls of Sangala; that he was wounded near to death in his assault upon the Mallian stronghold; and that in the valley of the Indus he could only overpower the opposition instigated by the Brahmans by means of wholesale massacres and executions. It may hence be safely inferred that if Alexander had found India united in arms to withstand his aggression, the star of his good fortune would have culminated with his passage of the Indus. But he found, on the contrary, the political condition of the country when he entered it eminently favourable to his designs. The regions of the Indus and its great tributary streams were then divided into separate states—some under kingly and others under republican governments, but all alike prevented by their mutual jealousies and feuds from acting in concert against a common enemy, and therefore all the more easy to overcome. Alexander, in pursuance of his usual policy, sought to secure the permanence of his Indian conquestsby founding cities,[2]which he strongly fortified and garrisoned with large bodies of troops to overawe and hold in subjection the tribes in their neighbourhood. The system of government also which he established was the same as that which he had provided for his other subject provinces, the civil administration being entrusted to native chiefs, while the executive and military authority was wielded by Macedonian officers.

The Asiatic nations in general submissively acquiesced in the new order of things, and after a time found no reason to regret the old order which it had superseded. Under their Hellenic masters they enjoyed a greater measure of freedom than they had ever before known; commerce was promoted, wealth increased, the administration of justice improved, and altogether they reached a higher level of culture, both intellectual and moral, than they could possibly have attained under a continuance of Persian supremacy.

India did not participate to any great extent in these advantages. Her people were too proud and warlike to brook long the burden and reproach of foreign thraldom, and within a few years after the Conqueror’s death they completely freed themselves from the yoke he imposed, and were thereafter ruled by their native princes. The Greek occupation having thus proved so transient, had little more effect in shaping the future course of the national destinies than a casual raid of Scottish borderers into Cumberland in the old days could have had in shaping the general course of English history.[3]

By this disruption of her relations with the rest of Alexander’s empire, India fell back into her former isolation from all the outside world, and for more than fifteen or sixteen centuries afterwards the western nations knew as little of her internal condition as they knew till lately of the interior of the Dark Continent. The invasion was, however, by no means fruitless of some good results. As has been already indicated, it drew aside the veil which had till then shrouded India from the observation of the rest of the world, and it thus widened the horizon of knowledge. It is fortunate that what then became known of India was not left for its preservation at the mercy of mere oral tradition, but was committed to the safer custody of writing. Not a few of Alexander’s officers and companions were men of high attainments in literature and science, and some of their number composed memoirs of his wars, in the course of which they recorded their impressions of India and the races by which they found it inhabited.[4]These reports, even in the fragmentary state in which they have come down to us, have proved of inestimable value to scholars engaged in the investigation of Indian antiquity—a task which the sad deficiency of Sanskrit literature in history and chronology has rendered one of no ordinary difficulty. Strabo, we must however note, stigmatized the authors referred to as being in general a set of liars, of whom only a few managed now and then to stammer out some words of truth. This sweeping censure is, however, a most egregious calumny. It may indeed be admitted that their descriptions are not uniformlyfree from error or exaggeration, and may even be tainted by some intermixture of fiction, but on the whole they wrote in good faith—a fact which even Strabo himself practically admits by frequently citing their authority for his statements. If one or two of them are to some extent liable to the censure, it must be remembered that Ptolemy, Aristoboulos, Nearchos, Megasthenes, and others of them, are writers of unimpeachable veracity.

It is to be regretted that the works in which these writers recorded their Indian experiences have all, without exception, perished. We know, however, the main substance of their contents from the histories of Alexander, written several centuries after his death by the authors we have here translated, as well as from Strabo, Pliny, Ailianos, Athênaios, Orosius, and others.

The following is a list of the writers on India who visited the country either with Alexander, or not many years after his death, or who were at least his contemporaries:—

1. Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, who became king of Egypt.2. Aristoboulos of Potidaia, or, as it was called afterwards, Kassandreia.3. Nearchos, a Kretan by birth, but settled at Amphipolis, admiral of the fleet.4. Onêsikritos of Astypalaia, or, as some say, of Aegina, pilot of the fleet.5. Eumenês of Kardia, Alexander’s secretary, who kept theEphemeridesor Court Journal. His countryman, Hieronymos, in his work on Alexander’s successors, made a few references to the campaigns of the Conqueror.6. Chares of Mitylene, wrote anecdotes of Alexander’s private life.7. Kallisthenes of Olynthos, Aristotle’s kinsman, author of an account of Alexander’s Asiatic expedition.8. Kleitarchos (Clitarchus), son of Deinôn of Rhodes, author of a life of Alexander.9. Androsthenes of Thasos, a naval officer, author of a Paraplous.10. Polykleitos of Larissa, author of a history of Alexander, full of geographical details.11. Kyrsilos of Pharsalos, who wrote of the exploits of Alexander.12. Anaximenes of Lampsakos, author of a history of Alexander.13. Diognêtos, who, with Baitôn, measured and recorded the distances of Alexander’s marches.14. Archelaös, a geographer, supposed to have accompanied Alexander’s expedition.15. Amyntas, author of a work on Alexander’sStathmoi,i.e.stages or halting-places.16. Patroklês, a writer on geography.17. Megasthenês, friend of Seleukos Nikator, and his ambassador at the Court of Sandrokottos, king of Palibothra, composed anIndika.18. Dêïmachos, ambassador at the same court in the days of the son and successor of Sandrokottos, author of a work on India in two books.19. Diodotos of Erythrai, who, like Eumenês, kept Alexander’s Court Journal, and may possibly have been in India.

1. Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, who became king of Egypt.

2. Aristoboulos of Potidaia, or, as it was called afterwards, Kassandreia.

3. Nearchos, a Kretan by birth, but settled at Amphipolis, admiral of the fleet.

4. Onêsikritos of Astypalaia, or, as some say, of Aegina, pilot of the fleet.

5. Eumenês of Kardia, Alexander’s secretary, who kept theEphemeridesor Court Journal. His countryman, Hieronymos, in his work on Alexander’s successors, made a few references to the campaigns of the Conqueror.

6. Chares of Mitylene, wrote anecdotes of Alexander’s private life.

7. Kallisthenes of Olynthos, Aristotle’s kinsman, author of an account of Alexander’s Asiatic expedition.

8. Kleitarchos (Clitarchus), son of Deinôn of Rhodes, author of a life of Alexander.

9. Androsthenes of Thasos, a naval officer, author of a Paraplous.

10. Polykleitos of Larissa, author of a history of Alexander, full of geographical details.

11. Kyrsilos of Pharsalos, who wrote of the exploits of Alexander.

12. Anaximenes of Lampsakos, author of a history of Alexander.

13. Diognêtos, who, with Baitôn, measured and recorded the distances of Alexander’s marches.

14. Archelaös, a geographer, supposed to have accompanied Alexander’s expedition.

15. Amyntas, author of a work on Alexander’sStathmoi,i.e.stages or halting-places.

16. Patroklês, a writer on geography.

17. Megasthenês, friend of Seleukos Nikator, and his ambassador at the Court of Sandrokottos, king of Palibothra, composed anIndika.

18. Dêïmachos, ambassador at the same court in the days of the son and successor of Sandrokottos, author of a work on India in two books.

19. Diodotos of Erythrai, who, like Eumenês, kept Alexander’s Court Journal, and may possibly have been in India.

Five consecutive narratives of Alexander’s Indian campaigns, compiled several centuries after his death from the works of the writers enumerated, who were either witnesses of the events they described, or living at the time of their occurrence, have descended to our times, and are respectively contained in the following productions:—

1. The Anabasis of Alexander, by Arrian of Nikomêdeia.2. The History of Alexander the Great, by Quintus Curtius Rufus.3. The Life of Alexander, in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives.4. The History of Diodôros the Sicilian.5. The Book of Macedonian History, compiled from the Universal History of Trogus Pompeius, by Justinus Frontinus.

1. The Anabasis of Alexander, by Arrian of Nikomêdeia.

2. The History of Alexander the Great, by Quintus Curtius Rufus.

3. The Life of Alexander, in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives.

4. The History of Diodôros the Sicilian.

5. The Book of Macedonian History, compiled from the Universal History of Trogus Pompeius, by Justinus Frontinus.

Arrian, who is universally allowed to be by far the best of all Alexander’s historians, was at once a philosopher, a statesman, a military commander, an expert in the tactics of war, and an accomplished writer. He was born towards the end of the first century of our aera at Nikomêdeia (now Ismiknid or Ismid), the capital of Bithynia, situated near the head of a deep bay at the south-eastern end of the Propontis or Sea of Marmora. He became a disciple of the Stoic philosopher Epiktêtos (much in the same way as Xenophon attached himself to Sôkrates), and gave to the world an abstract of his master’s lectures, together with anEncheiridionor manual of his philosophy—a work which was long and widely popular. Under the Emperor Hadrian he was appointed inA.D.132 prefect of Kappadokia. He had not long filled this office when a large body of wild Alan horsemen made one of their formidable raids into his province. They had hitherto proved irresistible, but on this occasion they were completely foiled by the skilful strategy and tactics of Arrian, who expelled them from his borders before they had secured any plunder. In Rome he was preferred to various high offices, and under Antoninus Pius was raised to the consulship. In his later years he retired to his native city, where he occupied himself in composing treatises on a considerable variety of subjects, but chiefly on history and geography. He died at an advanced age in the reign of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

His account of Alexander’s Asiatic expedition wasfollowed by a treatise on India called theIndika. The first part of this work, which gives a description of India and its people, was based chiefly on theIndikaof Megasthenes; and the second part, which narrates the famous voyage of Nearchos from the mouth of the Indus to the head of the Persian Gulf, was based on a journal kept by Nearchos himself. The work is but a supplement to his history. He speaks himself with noble pride of this great work. “This I do assert,” he says, “that this historical record of Alexander’s deeds is, and has been from my youth up, in place to me of native land, family, and honours of state; and so I do not regard myself as unworthy to take rank among the foremost writers in the Greek language, if Alexander be forsooth among the foremost in arms.” “Quel délire de l’amour propre!” here exclaims Sainte-Croix. His merits as an author are thus well stated by a writer in Smith’sClassical Dictionary: “This great work (theAnabasis) reminds the reader of Xenophon’sAnabasis, not only by its title, but also by the ease and clearness of its style.... Great as his merits thus are as an historian, they are yet surpassed by his excellences as an historical critic. HisAnabasisis based upon the most trustworthy historians among the contemporaries of Alexander.... One of the great merits of the work is the clearness and distinctness with which he describes all military movements and operations, the drawing up of the armies for battle, and the conduct of battles and sieges.”

Nothing is known with any certainty respecting either the life of this historian or the time at which he lived. Niebuhr makes him contemporary with Septimius Severus, but most critics with Vespasian. Zumpt again, who, like some other eminent scholars, identifies him with the rhetorician Q. Curtius Rufus, of whom Suetonius wrote alife now lost, places him as early as Augustus.[5]The style in which his history is written certainly shows him to have been a consummate master of rhetoric. He was particularly given to adorning his narrative with speeches and public harangues, and these, as Zumpt observes, are marked with a degree of power and effectiveness which scarcely anything in that species of writing can surpass. It may also be said that his style for elegance does not fall much short of the perfection of Cicero himself. It has of course its faults, and in these can be traced the incipient degeneracy of the Latin language, such as the introduction of poetical diction into prose, the ambition of expressing everything pointedly and strikingly, not to mention certain deviations from strict grammatical propriety.

The materials of his narrative were drawn chiefly from Ptolemy, who accompanied Alexander into India, from Kleitarchos their contemporary, and from Timagenes, who flourished in the reign of Augustus, and wrote an excellent history of Alexander and his successors. While the sources whence he derived his information were thus good on the whole, he was himself deficient in the knowledge of military tactics, geography, chronology, astronomy, and especially in historical criticism, and he is therefore as an historical authority far inferior to Arrian. But in perusing his “pictured pages” the reader takes but little note of his errors and inconsistencies, being fascinated with his graceful and glowing narrative, interspersed as it is with brilliant orations, sage maxims, sound moral reflections, vivid descriptions of life and manners, and beautiful estimates of character. It is not surprising that with such merits Curtius has been one of the most popular of the classical authors. In spite of all his sins, for which he has so often been pilloried by the censors of literary morals, his history of Alexander has been the delight andadmiration of not a few of the greatest of European scholars. He seems to have taken Livy as his model, as Arrian took Xenophon for his. His work consisted originally of ten books, but the first two are lost, and in some of the others considerable gaps occur. The French translation of Curtius by Vaugelas, who devoted thirty years of his life to the task, is so remarkable for its elegance that it has been pronounced to be as inimitable as Alexander himself was invincible. It is not, however, a very close version.

There are but few works in the wide circle of literature which have afforded so much instruction and entertainment to the world as Plutarch’sParallel Lives of the Famous Men of Greece and Rome. TheseLives, which are forty-six in number, are arranged in pairs, and each pair contains thelifeof a Greek and a Roman, followed, though not always, by a comparison drawn between the two. Alexander the Great and Caesar are ranked together, but no comparison follows. In his introduction to thelifeof the former, Plutarch explains his method as a biographer. “We do not,” he says, “give the actions in full detail and with a scrupulous exactness, but rather in a short summary, since we are not writinghistories, butlives. It is not always in the most distinguished achievements that men’s vices or virtues may be best discerned, but often an action of but little note—a short saying or a jest—may mark a person’s real character more than the greatest sieges or the most important battles.” HisLives, therefore, while useful to the writer of history, must be used with care, since they are not intended as materials for history. His narrative of Alexander’s progress through India has one or two passages which show this indifference to historical accuracy, as when, for instance, he states that the soldiers of Alexander refused to pass the Ganges when they saw the opposite bank covered with the army of theKing of the Praisians.[6]His account of the battle with Pôros is, however, excellent, and all the more interesting, because, as he tells us, he obtained the particulars from Alexander’s own letters.[7]

Plutarch was a native of Chairôneia, a town in Boiôtia. The date of his birth is unknown, but may be fixed towards the middle of the first century of our aera. He visited Italy, and lectured on philosophy in some of its cities. For some time he lived in Rome, where, it is said, but on doubtful authority, that he was promoted to high offices of state, and became tutor to the Emperor Trajan. The later years of his life he spent at Chairôneia, where he discharged various magisterial offices and held a priesthood. The date of his death, like that of his birth, is unknown, but it is clear that he lived to an advanced age. Besides theLives, he published other writings, mostly essays, having some resemblance to those of Bacon. They are sixty in number, and are called collectivelyMoralia, though some of them are of an historical character. Two of them are orationsAbout the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander. His style is somewhat difficult, at times cumbrous and involved, and somewhat deficient in that grace and perspicuity for which the works of the Attic writers are noted. His writings are all the more valuable from their supplying a deficiency of the Greek historians, whose works are filled with the records of war and politics, while giving us but little insight into men’s private lives and their social surroundings.

Diodôros was born at Agyrium, a city in the interior of Sicily, and was a contemporary of Julius Caesar and the Emperor Augustus. It was the great ambition of hislife to write an universal history, and having this in view he travelled over a great part of Europe and Asia in order to acquire a more accurate knowledge of countries and nations than could be obtained from merely reading books. In Rome, where a far greater number of the ancient documents which he required to consult had been collected than were to be found elsewhere, he resided for a considerable time. He spent thirty years in the composition of his work, to which he gave the name ofBibliothêkê, which indicated that it formed quitea libraryin itself, embracing, as it did, the history of all ages and all countries. It consisted of forty books, which he divided into three great sections: 1st, the mythical period previous to the Trojan war; 2d, the period thence to the death of Alexander the Great; 3d, the period from Alexander to the beginning of Caesar’s Gallic wars. Considerable portions of theBibliothêkêare lost, but all the books relating to the period with which we are concerned are still extant.

Diodôros constructed his narrative upon the plan of annals, placing the events of each year side by side without regard to their intrinsic connection. The value of the work is greatly impaired by the author’s evident want of critical discernment; he mixes up history with fiction, shows frequently that he has misunderstood his authorities, and advances statements which are mutually contradictory. His style is, however, pleasing, having the merits of simplicity and clearness. In his second book he gives a description of India epitomized from Megasthenes. His account of Alexander’s career in India records some interesting particulars of which we should otherwise have remained ignorant. He seems to have drawn largely from the same sources as Curtius.

Justin, in the preface to his work entitledDe Historiis Philippicis, informs us that it was “a kind of anthology”—velutiflorum corpusculum—extracted from the forty-four volumes published by Pompeius Trogus on Philippic (i.e.Macedonian) history. As these volumes included histories of nearly all the countries with which the Macedonian sovereigns had transactions, they embraced such a very wide field that they were regarded as a cyclopaedia of general history. Justin remarks that while many authors regard it as an arduous task to write no more than the history of one king or one state, we cannot but think that Pompeius had the daring of Hercules in attacking the whole world, seeing that in his books are contained theres gestaeof all ages, kings, nations, and peoples. He then states that he had occupied his leisure while in Rome by selecting those passages of Trogus which seemed most worthy of being generally known, and passing over such as he took to be neither particularly interesting nor instructive. He has been much, but unjustly, blamed for his omissions, seeing that his only object in writing was to compile a work of elegant historical extracts. By so doing he has rescued from oblivion many facts not elsewhere recorded. From the extracts relating to India we gather more information about Sandrokottos (Chandragupta) than from any other classical source. Trogus Pompeius belonged, we know, to the age of Augustus, but it is uncertain when Justin lived. As the earliest writer by whom he is mentioned is St. Jerome, his date cannot be later than the beginning of the fifth century of our aera.

Fig. 1.—Lysimachos.

Fig. 2.—Aristotle.

Alexander III., King of Macedonia, surnamed the Great, was born at Pella in the year 356B.C.He was the son of Philip II. and Olympias, who belonged to the royal race of Epeiros, which claimed to be descended from Achilles, the hero of theIliad. The education of the prince was in the outset entrusted to Lysimachos, an Akarnanian, and to his mother’s kinsman Leonidas,a man of an austere character, who inured his pupil to Spartan-like habits of hard exercise and simple fare. In his thirteenth year he was placed under the immediate tuition of Aristotle, who acquired a life-long influence over the mind and character of his pupil. It may be supposed that the eager love of discovery which conspicuously distinguished Alexander from ordinary conquerors was in a great measure inspired and stimulated by the precepts of his master. In his sixteenth year he was entrusted, during his father’s absence on a foreign expedition, with the regency of Macedonia; and two years later, at the battle of Chaironeia, which was won chiefly through his impetuous valour, he displayed for the first time his incomparable genius for war. This victory made the Macedonian King supreme in Greece, and at a convention which met soon afterwards at his summons, and which was attended by deputies from all the Grecian states except Sparta, he was appointed to command the national forces and to conduct an expedition against Persia to avenge the invasions of Mardonios and Xerxes. He was actively engaged in preparing for this great contest when he fell by the hand of an assassin. Alexander succeeded (336B.C.) not only to his sovereignty, but also to his supremacy in the affairs of Greece. He found himself, immediately on his accession, beset on all sides with most formidable opponents. Attalos, who was in Asia with a considerable force under his command, aspired to the throne; the Greeks, instigated by the passionate eloquence of Demosthenes, attempted to liberatethemselves from Macedonian dictation, and the barbarians of the north threatened his hereditary dominions with invasion. The youthful monarch was equal to the emergency. He at once seized Attalos and put him to death. Then suddenly marching southwards, he suppressed by skilful diplomacy the incipient rebellion of the Greek states. In the next place he turned his arms northwards, and, after much severe fighting, subjugated the barbarous tribes which lay between the frontiers of his kingdom and the Danube. Finally, he quelled in blood and desolation the revolt of Thebes, which had been prompted by a false rumour of his death. Having thus in a single year made himself a more powerful monarch than his father had ever been, he directed all his energies to complete the arrangements for the Persian expedition. The whole force which he collected for this purpose amounted to little more than 30,000 foot and 4500 horse.

The empire which this comparatively insignificant force was destined to attack and overthrow was the greatest which the world had as yet seen, and had already subsisted for two hundred years. It had been founded by Cyrus the Great, and extended by his successors till it embraced all Asia from the shores of the Aegean and the Levant to the regions of the Jaxartes and the Indus. It was divided by the great belt of desert, which stretches almost continuously from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Aral, into two great sections which differed widely both in their physical aspect and the character of their inhabitants. The eastern tribes living amid mountains and deserts were rude, but distinguished for their hardihood, their love of independence, and their martial prowess. The western Asiatics, on the other hand, who inhabited those fair and fertile countries which had been the earliest seats of civilisation, were singularly deficient in these qualities. Enervated by ease and the affluence of luxuries, they offered but a feeble resistance to Alexander, and bent their necks submissively to his yoke. He had quitea different experience when he came into conflict with the tribes of the Oxus, Jaxartes, and Indus. They resisted him with the utmost spirit and determination, rose against him even after defeat, and succeeded in inflicting a signal disaster on his arms.

The system by which the vast empire was governed may be described as a rigid monarchy. It was divided by Darius Hystaspes into twenty provinces, a number which was afterwards much augmented probably by the subdivision of the larger ones. The government of each was committed to a satrap[8]whose powers were almost despotic. He collected the revenues, from which, besides defraying the expenses of his own administration, he was obliged to remit a fixed amount of annual tribute to the royal treasury. The Indian satrapy, which probably included Baktria and was limited to the regions west of the Indus, paid the largest tribute, which, as we learn from Herodotos, amounted to the immense sum of 360 talents of gold dust.

The king who filled the throne at the time of the invasion was Darius Kodomannos, who had some reputation for personal courage and some other virtues which might have adorned his reign had it been fated to be peaceful. He was, however, like Louis XVI. of France, quite destitute of the skill and nerve required for piloting the vessel of the state in stormy times. The empire long before his accession had been falling into decay. Insurrections were for ever breaking out. Some of the provinces, though nominally subject, were practically independent, while in others the satraps both claimed and exercised the right of transmitting their authority by hereditary succession. What saved it from dissolution was, not so much the strength of the government, as the reluctance of the leading men, through their distrust of each other’s good faith, to enter into combinations against it. It was another symptom of its weakness, that the king in his wars trusted far more to the Greektroops in his pay than to his native levies and their leaders. Neither the Greeks nor the Persians had lost sight of the fact that at Kounaxa the victory had been won for Cyrus by the Greek mercenaries.

Alexander having completed his preparations, and appointed Antipater to act as regent of Macedonia during his absence, crossed over the Hellespont into Asia in the spring of 334B.C.His army, though numerically insignificant when compared with the magnitude of the enterprise which lay before it, proved nevertheless, from the physical superiority, courage, and daring of the men, combined with the perfection of their organisation and discipline, and the consummate skill of their leader, more than a match for any force, however numerous, which was brought into the field against it. We may here quote a passage from Thirlwall, in which he describes the composition, organisation, and equipment of this heroic little army which performed the greatest deeds recorded in military annals:

“The main body, the phalanx—or quadruple phalanx, as it was sometimes called, to mark that it was formed of four divisions, each bearing the same name—presented a mass of 18,000 men, which was distributed, at least by Alexander, into six brigades of 3000 each, formidable in its aspect, and on ground suited to its operations, irresistible in its attacks. The phalangite soldier wore the usual defensive armour of the Greek heavy infantry—helmet, breast-plate, and greaves: and almost the whole front of his person was covered with the long shield called theaspis. His weapons were a sword long enough to enable a man in the second rank to reach an enemy who had come to close quarters with the comrade who stood before him, and the celebrated spear, known by the Macedonian name,sarissa, four-and-twenty feet long. The sarissa, when couched, projected eighteen feet in front of the soldier: and the space between the ranks was such that those of the second rank were fifteen, those of the third twelve, those of the fourth nine, those of the fifth six, and those of the sixth three feet in advance of the first line: so that the man at the head of the file was guarded on each side by the points of six spears. The ordinary depth of the phalanx was of sixteen ranks. The men who stood too far behind to use theirsarissas, and who therefore kept them raised until they advanced to fill a vacant place, still added to the pressure of the mass. As the efficacy of the phalanx depended on its compactness, and this again on the uniformity of its movements, the greatest care was taken to select the best soldiers for the foremost and hindmost ranks—the frames, as it were, of the engine. The bulk and core of the phalanx consisted of Macedonians; but it was composed in part of foreign troops. These were no doubt Greeks. But the northern Illyrians, Paeonians, Agrianians, and Thracians, who were skilled in the use of missiles, furnished bowmen, dartsmen, and slingers: probably according to the proportion which the master of tactics deemed the most eligible, about half the number of the phalanx. To these was added another class of infantry, peculiar in some respects to the Macedonian army, though the invention belonged to Iphicrates. They were called Hypaspists, because, like the phalangites, they carried the long shield: but their spears were shorter, their swords longer, their armour lighter. They were thus prepared for more rapid movements, and did not so much depend on the nature of the ground. They formed a corps of about 6000 men. The cavalry was similarly distinguished into three classes by its arms, accoutrements, and mode of warfare. Its main strength consisted in 1500 Macedonian and as many Thessalian horse. But the rider and his horse were cased in armour, and his weapons seem to have corresponded to those of the heavy infantry. The light cavalry, chiefly used for skirmishing and pursuit, and in part armed with the sarissa, was drawn from the Thracians and Paeonians, and was about the third of the number of the heavy horse. A smaller body of Greek cavalry probably stood in nearly the same relation to the other two divisions, as the Hypaspists to the heavy and light infantry. To the Hypaspists belonged the royal foot bodyguard, the Agêma, or royal escort, and the Argyraspides, so called from the silver ornaments with which their long shields were enriched. But the precise relation in which these bodies stood to each other does not appear very distinctly from the descriptions of the ancients. The royal horse-guard was composed of eight Macedonian squadrons, filled with the sons of the best families. The numbers of each are not ascertained, but they seem in all not much to have exceeded or fallen short of a thousand.”

From this description of the Macedonian army, it may easily be imagined what a formidable aspect its main arm—the phalanx of panoplied infantry—would present tothe enemy. Polybios informs us that the Roman officers who were present in the battle of Kynoskephalai, and then saw the phalanx for the first time, told him that in all their experience of war they had never seen anything so terrible. The phalanx, however, as that historian points out, could only operate effectively on level and open ground—was quite unfit for rapid advance and rough terrain, and useless if its ranks were broken. It was thus helpless in face of an active enemy unless well supported by cavalry and light troops. This explains why Alexander attached so much importance to his cavalry. In point of fact he owed none of his victories to the phalanx; his cavalry, rapid in its evolutions and charging with resistless impetuosity, gained them all. In addition to the troops which have been particularised in the extract, there was one kind organised by Alexander calleddimachai, intermediate between cavalry and infantry, being designed to fight on horseback or on foot as circumstances required. His artillery formed a very useful part of his equipment. Thebalistaiandkatapeltaiof which it consisted threw stones and darts to the distance of 300 yards, and was frequently employed with great effect.

As he foresaw that in the course of his expedition he was likely to penetrate to regions either imperfectly or altogether unknown, he entertained on his staff men of literary and scientific requirements to write his deeds, and describe those countries and nations to which he might carry his arms.

He first came into conflict with the Persians on the banks of the Granîkos, a small river, which, flowing from Mount Ida through the Trojan plain, enters the Propontis to the west of Kyzikos. Their army, which consisted of 20,000 horse, and an equal number of Greek mercenaries, was commanded by several satraps who were assisted by the counsels of Memnon the Rhodian, the ablest general in the service of Darius. The Persians were drawn up in line along the right bank of the stream, while their mercenaries were posted on a range of heights that rosein the rear. Alexander drew up his forces on the opposite bank in the order which he adopted in all his great battles. Thus the phalanx formed his centre; he commanded himself the extreme right, and the officer in whom he had most confidence the extreme left. To either wing were attached such brigades of the phalanx as circumstances seemed to require. The Persians having observed where Alexander was posted, strengthened their left wing with dense squadrons of their best cavalry, anticipating that this part of their line would be exposed to the first fury of the onset led by himself in person. They judged aright. Alexander having sent a detachment of cavalry across the stream, followed with other cavalry and a portion of the phalanx. The Persians made a gallant resistance, but were soon beaten. Their darts and scimitars were no match for the tough cornel of the Macedonian spears. Their ranks first broke where Alexander himself in the hottest of the fight was dealing death and wounds around him. A blow which was descending on his own head, and which if delivered would have proved fatal, was intercepted by Kleitos, who cut off the arm of the assailant, scimitar and all. The field was won before either the phalanx on the one side, or the Greek mercenaries on the other, could come into action. The Macedonians, after returning from a short pursuit, closed around the mercenaries and cut them down, all but 2000 who were made prisoners and sent in chains to Macedonia. The number of the Persians slain was about 1000 against only 115 on the other side.

Alexander did not, like most other conquerors after a victory, plunder the surrounding country, but regarding Asia as already his own, treated the inhabitants as subjects whose interests he was bound to protect and promote. Neither did he at once advance into the interior, but, acting by a rule of strategy which he was always careful to observe, resolved to make his rear secure. He therefore first reduced all the western provinces of the empire which Darius after the defeat of his satraps had placedunder the supreme authority of Memnon the Rhodian. Memnon was a formidable antagonist, both from his skill in war, and from his having a powerful fleet at his command, which gave him the dominion of the sea, and enabled him to threaten at will the shores of Greece and Macedonia.

Alexander marched from the battle-field to Ilion, and advanced thence southward through the beautiful regions of Ionia and the other maritime states, which, in striking contrast to their present blighted condition, were then at the height of prosperity—adorned with numerous rich and splendid cities, which vied with each other in all the arts of refinement. The terror of his name preceded him, and these cities one after another, including even Sardis, the western capital, which was strongly fortified, threw open their gates to admit him. Milêtos, however, and Halikarnassos, being supported by the Persian fleet, refused to surrender, and did not fall into his hands until each had been for some time besieged. After the fall of Halikarnassos, the rest of Karia, of which it was the capital, submitted, and then the operations of the first year of the war were brought to a close by the reduction of all Lykia. In this province he gave his army some rest.

The next campaign opened with the conquest of Pamphylia, after which Alexander turned his march away from the coast with a view to invade Phrygia, which lay to the north beyond the lofty range of Tauros. It was now the depth of winter, but Alexander in defiance of all obstacles—frost and snow, torrents and precipices, and the resistance of the fierce Pisidian mountaineers—forced his way into the Phrygian plains. This passage of the Tauros at such a season was an achievement not unworthy to rank with the more celebrated passage of the Alps made by Hannibal about a century later. After he had cleared the defiles, a march of five days brought him to Kelainai, the capital of the greater Phrygia, which was pleasantly situated where the river Marsyas joins the Maeander, andwas embellished with a palace and a royal park. Alexander, deeming its acropolis to be impregnable, made terms with the inhabitants, and then advanced to the ancient capital called Gordion, after Gordios, the father of the celebrated Midas, the first king of the country. Here was the complicated knot to which the prophecy was attached that whoever untied it should be Lord of Asia. It was tied on a rope of bark which fastened the yoke to the pole of the wagon on which Midas had been carried into the city on the day when the people chose him as their king. Alexander either undid the knot or cut it through with his sword.

On the return of spring he moved forward to Ankyra (now Angora), and there had the satisfaction to receive the submission of the Paphlagonians, who at that time were a very powerful nation. Being thus free to move southwards without leaving an enemy in his rear, he entered Kappadokia, and having overrun it without encountering any serious opposition, he recrossed the Tauros by a pass that admitted him into the fertile plains of Eastern Kilikia. The capital of this province was Tarsos, a flourishing seat of commerce, art, and learning, built on both banks of the river Kydnos, which was navigable to the sea. This important city fell without resistance into Alexander’s hands, the satrap having fled at the tidings of his approach. Here, however, he nearly lost his life, having caught a violent fever by throwing himself when heated into the waters of the Kydnos, which ran cold with the snows of Mount Tauros. After his recovery he sent Parmeniôn eastward to occupy the passes leading into Syria, called the Syrian Gates, and marched himself in the opposite direction to reduce the hill-tribes of Western Kilikia. In the meantime Darius, advancing from the East, had crossed the Euphrates and the Syrian desert at the head of an army not less numerous than that with which Napoleon invaded Russia, and was lying encamped on a wide plain suitable for his cavalry within a two days’ march of the Syrian Gates. Here hewaited for some time ready to fall upon the Macedonian troops and crush them with the overwhelming superiority of his numbers when they debouched from the defile. When he despaired of their coming, he marched into Kilikia through a pass known as the Amanian Gates and encamped on the banks of the Pinaros which flows through the plain of Issos to the sea. He thus placed himself in a trap where he was hemmed in by the mountains and the sea in a narrow plain not more than a mile and a half in width. Alexander meanwhile had passed through the other gates into the Syrian plain when he learned to his astonishment that Darius was now in his rear. He at once retraced his steps, and by midnight regained the pass, where from one of its summits he beheld the Persian watchfires gleaming far and wide over the plain of Issos. At daybreak he marched down the pass, and on reaching the open part of the plain made the usual disposition of his forces, Parmeniôn commanding the left, and himself the right wing. Darius had drawn up his line, which extended from the mountains to the sea, along the northern bank of the river Pinaros. In the centre, which confronted the dreaded Macedonian phalanx, he had posted a body of 30,000 heavy-armed Greek mercenaries.

Alexander began the action by dislodging a detachment of the enemy which had been posted at the base of the mountains and threatened his rear. Finding the Persians did not advance, he crossed the river and charged their left wing with such impetuosity that he broke their ranks and swept them from the field irretrievably discomfited. He then wheeled round and brought timely succour to his phalanx, which the Greek mercenaries of Darius were driving back with disordered ranks to the river. The struggle now became desperate, for these mercenaries, bitterly resenting the state of political degradation to which the Macedonians had reduced their compatriots in southern Greece, now fought against them with all the fury that the passions of hate and rivalrycould inspire. They were nevertheless driven back, and the tide of battle surged up towards the state chariot itself, on which Darius was mounted in the centre of his line. The pusillanimous monarch no sooner perceived that his person was in danger than he ordered his charioteer to turn the heads of his horses for flight. This decided the fortunes of the day; it was the signal of his defeat, and his troops, on seeing it, at once broke from their ranks and fled from the field. The cavalry even, which on the extreme right had victory almost within their grasp, yielded to the general panic, and helped to swell the crowd of fugitives. As the narrowness of the plain allowed but very little room for escape, the vanquished were massacred in myriads. Darius escaped across the Euphrates, but his treasures and his family, consisting of his mother, wife, and children, fell into Alexander’s hands, who treated these illustrious captives with all the kindness and courtesy which were due alike to their misfortunes and their exalted rank.

He did not pursue Darius, and about two years passed away before he again met him in battle. His victory had left Syria and Egypt open to his arms, and these countries had to be reduced and the power of Persia effectually crushed at sea before he could advance with safety into the heart of the empire. He therefore marched southward to Phoenicia, the seaports of which supplied the Persians with most of their war-galleys. Parmeniôn he sent forward with a small detachment to seize Damascus, where Darius, before his defeat, had deposited his treasures. The city surrendered without resistance, and a vast and varied spoil fell into the hands of the Macedonians. The cities along the Syrian coast submitted in like manner to Alexander himself, all but Tyre, which sent him a golden crown, but refused to admit him within her gates. For this temerity the city of merchant princes paid a dreadful penalty. Alexander, having captured it after a seven months’ siege, burned it to the ground, and most of the inhabitants he either slew or sold into slavery. This isconsidered to have been the greatest of all Alexander’s military achievements. Tyre had hitherto been deemed impregnable. It was built on an island separated from the mainland by a channel of the sea half a mile in width; its walls, which were of great solidity, rose to an immense height, and its navy gave it the command of the sea. The inhabitants, moreover, were expert in arms, and defended themselves with such spirit and obstinacy that Alexander found himself unable to overcome their resistance, until he obtained from Cyprus and Sidon a fleet superior to their own. He had also to construct a causeway through the channel to enable him to bring his engines close up to the walls, and this was a work of vast labour and difficulty. His merciless treatment of the vanquished darkly overshadows the glory of this memorable exploit.

Palestine, with the adjoining districts, next submitted to the Conqueror. Gaza alone, like Tyre, closed its gates against him. This city, which stood not far from the sea, towards the edge of the desert which separates Syria from Egypt, was strongly fortified, and held out for two months. Alexander took it by storm, slaughtered the garrison, and then set out for Egypt. A seven days’ march through the desert brought him to Pelusium. The Egyptians, who smarted under the bondage of Persia, like the Israelites of old under their own, hailed his advent as that of a deliverer, and gladly submitted to his rule.

Alexander proceeded as far southward as Memphis and the Pyramids, and then embarking on the western or Kanopic branch of the Nile, sailed down to Lake Mareôtis, and landed on the narrow sandy isthmus by which that lake is separated from the sea. This neck of land was faced on the north by the island of Pharos, a long ridge of rock which sheltered it from all the violence of the ocean. Alexander, discerning with his keen eye all the advantages of such a position for commerce, at once founded on the isthmus the city of Alexandria, which, as he anticipated, soon became the great centre of tradebetween the eastern and western worlds. His next object was to consult the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, which was said to have been visited by Heraklês and Perseus, from both of whom he claimed to be descended. He therefore marched along the coast for about 200 miles to Paraitonion, which lay at the western extremity of Egypt. On the way he was met by deputies from Kyrênê, who brought him valuable presents, and invited him to visit their city. From Paraitonion he marched southward through the Libyan desert, and, after some days, reached the large and beautiful oasis where, embosomed amid thick woods, rose the temple of Ammon and the palace of his priests. On consulting the oracle he obtained answers, about the nature of which he stated nothing further than that they were satisfactory. He then returned across the desert to Memphis, where he settled the future government of Egypt, and ordered justice to be dispensed according to the ancient laws of the country. From Memphis he directed his march to Syria, and on reaching Tyre, remained there for some time. While he was in Egypt he had been visited by Hegelochos, his admiral, who reported that the Persians had been dispossessed of the islands which they had acquired in the Aegean; that their fleet had been dissipated, and that all their leaders were prisoners except Pharnabazos, the successor of Memnon, who had died somewhat suddenly while Alexander was in Phrygia.

Alexander was now, therefore, the undisputed master of all the countries west of the Euphrates, and could with complete security turn his arms eastward to bring his contest with Persia to a final issue. Darius, on the other hand, who, in the interval between his defeat and the fall of Tyre, had twice sent an embassy to the Conqueror to sue for peace and the ransom of his family, on terms which, though most tempting, had been haughtily refused, was mustering all his forces to encounter the storm of war which would sooner or later burst from the clouds that hung ominously on his western horizon. The army he now raised was far stronger numerically than that withwhich he had fought at Issos, and, as it was drawn chiefly from the east, consisted of the best troops in his empire. He led it from Babylon across the Tigris, and marching northward along the eastern bank of that river, reached the plains of northern Assyria, which afforded ample space for the evolutions of his numerous cavalry. Here he encamped on a wide plain between the Tigris and the mountains of Kurdistan, near a village called Gaugamela.

Back to Index Next