A Commentary on Arrian’s The Anabasis of Alexander 1.7-10
In the second century AD, the conquests of Alexander within Greece and Persia were extensively documented by Arrian. Arrian documented this in The Anabasis of Alexander, a surviving collection of seven books. The period documented in these books ranges from the death of Philip II (336 BC) and the death of Alexander (323 BC), therefore Arrian was writing around 350 years later between 86-161 AD. The extract transcribed is situated within book one of the seven, acting as the beginning of Arrian’s historiography. The extract itself describes the build-up of tension between Macedonia and the Thebans and ultimately Alexander’s destruction of Thebes. Alexander was the king of Macedonia, accessing the throne after his father, Philip II’s death. The text itself possesses many underlying themes and wider historic context which I will discuss within the commentary itself, sectioned into short lemmata that explore textual, linguistic and historical issues, as well as literary interpretation.
1.7.1 Theban exiles who had been expelled from the city: Arrian, later in the texts (1.7.10-11) notes that these Theban exiles were members of the Boeotian Confederation. The Boeotian Confederation was dispersed in 386 BC with the establishment of the King’s Peace (otherwise known as the Peace of Antalcidas). In 382 BC, Sparta attacked Thebes which led to Thebes re-establishing the Boeotian Confederacy. Spartan defeat led to years of Theban hegemony, until Thebes was weakened dramatically by the Third Sacred War. After this, Boeotia (spearheaded by Thebes) aligned themselves with Philip II. When Athens opposed Philip II, Boeotia turned and supported Athens. Philip II won at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC putting down the revolts. Therefore, the exiles from the Boeotian Confederacy, according to Arrian, coerce the people of Thebes into revolt, still harbouring ideals of revolution against the heavy Macedonian rule and regain hegemony.
Walbank notes that, after Chaeronea, the League of Corinth made “Philip II, hegemon-though many Greeks regarded this as a serious diminution of the rights of the poleis and something very like monarch”. After Philip II’s death, Alexander continued this form of autocratic rule leaving much of the Greek hemisphere unsettled. Hence, the installation of oppressive rule would have spurred on revolutionaries, new and old.
1.7.1 Killed… captured… unsuspecting: Arrian’s language within this passage suggests to the reader that the Boeotian exiles are brutes, killing Macedonian officers for no apparent, describing it as an unprovoked act.
1.7.1 Cadmea: the acropolis or citadel of Thebes. The Macedonian troops garrisoned the Cadmea after the Battle of Chaeronea.
1.7.2 Fine old slogans of ‘freedom’ and ‘independence’: Within this time in ancient Greek history, revolts were extremely frequent due to a power void in which many states competed to fill, including; Athens, Macedon and Sparta etc. City-states revolted, mainly, to attempt to regain hegemony. Therefore, Arrian could be referring to this recurrent ideology or alternatively the slogans used when Athens and the Boeotian confederacy tried to halt Philip II and the growing Macedonian power in 338 BC, repeating the same aims against Alexander.
1.7.3 died in Illyria: Curtius noted that Alexander campaigned in Illyria, and in this time Demosthenes had wrongly reported that the Macedonian "army had been annihilated in the north, and that Alexander himself had fallen in battle". Hence, the revolutionaries believed that Alexander was dead.
1.7.4 suspicious of Athens: Alexander was suspicious of Athens due to their previous revolt against Philip II as previously explained. Athens was another strong power attempting to attain hegemony, therefore the idea of both Thebes and Athens (two strong, large city states) revolting was highly concerning.
1.7.4 Spartans… Peloponnese… Aetolians: These were other groups within the Greek peninsula who had previous conflict with Alexander, an uprising in Thebes would give them sure reason to join revolution and rid themselves of Macedonian power.
1.7.5 entire army: Diodorus Siculus notes “Alexander had more than thirty thousand infantry and no less than three thousand cavalry” on their way to Thebes. Arrian notes the army as “entire” as Alexander and the Macedonians were at this point progressing towards their conquest of Persia.
1.7.6 no patience with anyone: Arrian portrays the “Theban exiles”, in this instance, as unreasonable. This builds up imagery of the revolutionaries, suggesting that they are troublesome and ultimately misguiding the people of Thebes.
1.7.7 to give the Thebans a period of grace: Arrian portrays Alexander as lenient, inferring that Alexander allowed the Thebans time to reconsider. The term “grace” implies courtesy or civility, conveying Alexander as magnanimous.
1.7.7-8 disastrous decision: Arrian foreshadows what is to come by using emotive language such as “disastrous” building tension within his recount of events.
1.7.8 the Thebans had their cavalry… sally out from the city… killed a few Macedonians: Arrian documents that the Thebans were the first to attack, thereby alleviating blame of Alexanders troops for beginning aggression and inferring that the Macedonians were forced into battle and subsequently so in the destruction of Thebes. This is reaffirmed with Arrian’s note that the “Thebans were now coming close to the main camp”, conveying an advancement made by the Thebans, provoking Alexander and his troops.
1.7.9 repulse: The term repulse suggests the drive back of (an attack or attacker) by force. Arrian is continuously establishing the image of Theban aggression and Macedonian reaction.
1.7.9 refrained: the imagery of Alexander as merciful is continued (1.7.7) by Arrian, suggesting that another, less merciful, leader may have reacted to Theban aggression, however Alexander continues acting with clemency.
1.7.9 Alexander still did not attack the city: Even after Theban assault, Alexander refrains from direct attack on the city. This further establishes Alexander as a humane, patient leader and suggests his hand was later forced into battle after much resistance.
1.7.10 double line of palisades: The Theban army is described here as surrounding the Macedonian troops at Cadmea, suggesting the Thebans intimidation and aggression with intent to begin battle.
1.7.11 exiles… Biotech’s: As previously explained (1.7.1), the Boeotarchs were members of the Boeotian Confederacy that Thebes dominated. Grote notes that Thebes was the Boeotian leagues “chief and mother-city” . Arrian suggests that Alexander would not allow them “generous treatment” (1.7.11), conflicting with his prior merciful, forgiving description of Alexander conveyed in passages such as 1.7.7 and 1.7.9. This contrast suggests inconsistencies in Arrian’s portrayal of Alexander.
1.7.11 power… press: Arrian uses descriptive language to convey to the reader the pressure the Theban people were put under by the revolutionaries, justifying the people and placing the blame solely on the Boeotian exiles.
1.7.1 1 Alexander still did not attack the city: Again, Arrian continues to repeatedly portray Alexander’s tolerance and restraint (1.7.7, 1.7.9), showing that Alexander wished to not fight the Thebans. Polybius, alternatively, disapproved of Alexander’s harshness (4.23 7-9) on the city of Thebes, inferring that Alexander may not have been as lenient as Arrian portrays.
1.8.1 Perdiccas… attacked the palisade: Arrian alleviates blame on Alexander for the initial attack of Thebes, stating that it was Perdiccas (a general in Alexander’s army) who attacked Thebans uninstructed. However, Diodorus Siculus’ account of events differs, noting that Alexander “hurried Perdiccas with a large detachment of troops to seize it and penetrate into the city” during already occurring battle between Macedonia and Thebes.
During Arrian’s introduction of The Anabasis of Alexander, he writes that his version of events is heavily reliant on the writings of “Ptolemy the son of Lagos” and “Aristobulus the son of Aristobulus”. Ptolemy was a Macedonian general and recorded the events in the destruction of Thebes in his biography, acting as an eye-witness to events. However, it has been suggested that Ptolemy “deliberately changed the course of battle so that Perdiccas would be made responsible” instead of Alexander himself for the horrific event which unsettled the Greek world. This idea is reaffirmed by Errington who likewise suggests that this claim is used to absolve “Alexander of the blame for Thebes’ destruction”. It becomes clear that, in the two contrasting accounts from Diodorus and Ptolemy, Ptolemy’s account of events holds more advantage as it places all blame on Perdiccas, portraying Alexander’s actions as suddenly necessary not premeditated.
1.8.2-3 prevent danger… isolated at the mercy of the Thebans: The terms of “prevent” and suggest, again, that Alexander was forced into action by external factors such as Theban irrationality or eagerness of his troops. The phrase “prevent danger” also embodies Alexander as protector of the Greeks, taking appropriate steps to safeguard Greece against revolutionaries.
1.8.3-7: Arrian portrays the battle in detail, noting the ultimate retreat of the Thebans inside their city walls. Arrian provides a precise and thorough account of battle noting that it was not entirely easy for the Macedonians. Arrian states “around seventy of the archers were killed”, showing Macedonian bloodshed. However, Arrian neglects to share an estimation for the sum of Thebans lost in the battle, protecting the Macedonian image by lessening the emphasis on Theban suffering in battle.
1.8.7 furious slaughter: The emotive language of “furious” and “slaughter” suggest that Arrian strongly disagrees with the events that occurred after the battle, portraying it as inhumane and barbaric.
1.8.8 Phocians… Plataeans… Boeotians: Arrian alleviates blame from the Macedonians and instead places it with other Greek groups. Plutarch’s account of events vastly differs from Arrian’s as he suggests, noting that Thebes “was taken, plundered, and razed to the ground” by the Macedonians alone, however Alexander blamed “his allies”. Wardman notes that “Alexander tried to escape from his responsibilities by making the allies technically responsible”, which Arrian allows him to do in his description of events.
1.8.8 broke into houses… killed any… suppliants at the altar… women nor children: Arrian depicts the Phocians, Plataeans and Boeotians as barbarians, killing mercilessly. This is in stark contrast to his previous portrayal of Alexander using words such as “mercy”, “refrained” and “grace”. However, Plutarch notes neither of these were the case as the Macedonians under Alexanders rule were the perpetrators of these wrongdoings. Furthermore, Plutarch notes that Alexander “sold the rest into slavery, and they proved to be more than thirty thousand; those who had been slain were more than six thousand”, contrasting Arrian’s imagery of Alexander as a merciful leader.
1.9.2 Athenian debacle in Sicily: This refers to Athenian defeat at Syracuse in the Peloponnesian War in 413 BC. Hammond notes, seven thousand men escaped the final massacre, therefore Arrian acknowledges that the destruction of Thebes was far more severe and had an immediate, devastating impact.
1.7.3: Aegospotami: