The Anabasis of Alexander or, The history of the wars and conquests of Alexander the Great
IV. Another lost work of Arrian on the life and death of Epictetus
is mentioned by Simplicius in the beginning of his Commentary on the
Enchiridion.
V. Besides editing these philosophical works, Arrian wrote many
original books. By far the most important of these is the _Anabasis of
Alexander_, or the History of Alexander the Great’s Campaigns. This
is one of the most authentic and accurate of historical works. Though
inspired with admiration for his hero, the author evinces impartiality
and freedom from hero-worship. He exhibits great literary acuteness in
the choice of his authorities and in sifting evidence. The two chief
sources from which he drew his narrative were the histories written by
Ptolemy, son of Lagus, and Aristobulus, son of Aristobulus, both of
whom were officers in Alexander’s army. Other authorities quoted by
Arrian himself were:—Eratosthenes, Megasthenes, Nearchus, Aristus,
and Asclepiades. He also made use of Alexander’s letters, which he
mentions five times;[6] only once, however, quoting the exact words of
the writer. The last authority which he mentions, is the _Royal Diary_
kept by Eumenes, of Cardia, the private secretary of Philip as well as
of Alexander, and by the historian Diodotus, of Erythrae. It is used by
Arrian only once,[7] as it is by Plutarch.[8]
VI. The work named _Indica_, is a description of India, and was usually
united in manuscripts with the Anabasis, as an eighth book. Though
it may be looked upon as a supplement to the Anabasis, Arrian often
refers in the one work to the other.[9] From this we may infer that the
author wished the _Indica_ to be considered a distinct book from the
Anabasis; and from the remark in Anab. v. 1, it is clear that it was
composed after the Anabasis. This book is written in the Ionic dialect,
like the History of Herodotus and the Indica of Ctesias. The latter
untrustworthy book Arrian wished to supplant by his own narrative,
principally based on the works of Megasthenes and Nearchus.
VII. Photius mentions among Arrian’s historical works:—_The Events
after Alexander_, in ten books, which gives the history of Alexander’s
successors. Photius (cod. 92) has preserved many extracts from this
work.
VIII. _Bithynica_ in eight books, a work often quoted by Eustathius in
his commentaries to the Iliad and to Dionysius Periegetes. In regard
to the contents of this book, Photius (cod. 93) says:—“The Bithynica
commences from the mythical events of history and comes down as far
as the death of the last Nicomedes, who at his death bequeathed his
kingdom to the Romans, who had never been ruled by a king after the
expulsion of Tarquin.”
IX. _Parthica_, in seventeen books. See Photius (cod. 58).
X. _History of the Alani_. See Photius (cod. 93). Only fragments of
this and the _Parthica_ remain.
XI. Besides the large works, we learn from Photius (cod. 93) that
Arrian wrote the biographies of the Corinthian Timoleon and of the
Syracusan Dion. Lucian (Alex. 2), also states that he wrote the life of
Tilliborus, the notorious robber of Asia Minor.
XII. A valuable geographical work by Arrian has come down to us, called
“Περίπλους πόντου Εὐξείνου”, a description of a voyage round the coasts
of the Euxine. This naval expedition was executed by him as Governor
of Cappadocia. The Alani, or, Albani of the East, a tribe related to
the Massagetae, were threatening to invade his province, and he made
this voyage with a view of fortifying the most important strategic
points on the coast. From section 26 of the Periplus we find that this
voyage must have taken place about the year 131 or 132 A.D.; for the
death of King Cotys II., noticed in that passage as just dead, is
proved by Böckh’s investigations to have occurred in 131 A.D. Two other
geographical works, _The Periplus of the Red Sea_ and _The Periplus of
the Euxine_, formerly ascribed to Arrian, are proved to belong to a
later date.
XIII. A work on _Tactics_, composed 137 A.D. In many parts this book
agrees nearly verbally with the larger work of Aelian on the same
subject; but Leo Tacticus (vii. 85) expressly mentions the two works as
distinct.
XIV. _An Array of Battle against the Alani_, is a fragment discovered
in the seventeenth century in the Description of his Battles with the
Alani, who invaded his province, probably 137 A.D., as Arrian had
previously feared.[10]
XV. A small work by Arrian on the Chase, forms a supplement to
Xenophon’s book on the same subject. It is entitled _Cynegeticus of
Arrian or the second Xenophon the Athenian_.
The best editions of the Anabasis are the following:—The _editio
princeps_ by Trincavelli, Venice, 1535; Gerbel, Strassburg, 1539; Henri
Estienne, 1575; N. Blancardus, Amsterdam, 1668; J. Gronovius, Leyden,
1704; G. Raphelius, Amsterdam, 1757; A. C. Borkeck, Lemgovia, 1792;
F. Schmieder, Leipzig, 1798; Tauchnitz edition, Leipzig, 1818; J. O.
Ellendt, Königsberg, 1832; C. W. Krüger, Berlin, 1835; F. Dübner,
Paris, 1846; K. Abicht, Leipzig, 1871.
ARRIAN’S PREFACE.
I have admitted into my narrative as strictly authentic all the
statements relating to Alexander and Philip which Ptolemy, son of
Lagus,[11] and Aristobulus, son of Aristobulus,[12] agree in making;
and from those statements which differ I have selected that which
appears to me the more credible and at the same time the more
deserving of record. Different authors have given different accounts
of Alexander’s life; and there is no one about whom more have
written, or more at variance with each other. But in my opinion the
narratives of Ptolemy and Aristobulus are more worthy of credit than
the rest; Aristobulus, because he served under king Alexander in his
expedition, and Ptolemy, not only because he accompanied Alexander in
his expedition, but also because he was himself a king afterwards, and
falsification of facts would have been more disgraceful to him than to
any other man. Moreover, they are both more worthy of credit, because
they compiled their histories after Alexander’s death, when neither
compulsion was used nor reward offered them to write anything different
from what really occurred. Some statements made by other writers I
have incorporated in my narrative, because they seemed to me worthy of
mention and not altogether improbable; but I have given them merely as
reports of Alexander’s proceedings. And if any man wonders why, after
so many other men have written of Alexander, the compilation of this
history came into my mind, after perusing[13] the narratives of all the
rest, let him read this of mine, and then wonder (if he can).
THE ANABASIS OF ALEXANDER.
BOOK I.
CHAPTER I.
DEATH OF PHILIP AND ACCESSION OF ALEXANDER.—HIS WARS WITH THE
THRACIANS.
It is said that Philip died[14] when Pythodemus was archon at
Athens,[15] and that his son Alexander,[16] being then about twenty
years of age, marched into Peloponnesus[17] as soon as he had secured
the regal power. There he assembled all the Greeks who were within the
limits of Peloponnesus,[18] and asked from them the supreme command of
the expedition against the Persians, an office which they had already
conferred upon Philip. He received the honour which he asked from all
except the Lacedaemonians,[19] who replied that it was an hereditary
custom of theirs, not to follow others but to lead them. The Athenians
also attempted to bring about some political change; but they were
so alarmed at the very approach of Alexander, that they conceded to
him even more ample public honours than those which had been bestowed
upon Philip.[20] He then returned into Macedonia and busied himself in
preparing for the expedition into Asia.
However, at the approach of spring (B.C. 335), he marched towards
Thrace, into the lands of the Triballians and Illyrians,[21] because
he ascertained that these nations were meditating a change of policy;
and at the same time, as they were lying on his frontier, he thought
it inexpedient, when he was about to start on a campaign so far away
from his own land, to leave them behind him without being entirely
subjugated. Setting out then from Amphipolis, he invaded the land of
the people who were called independent Thracians,[22] keeping the
city of Philippi and mount Orbelus on the left. Crossing the river
Nessus,[23] they say he arrived at mount Haemus[24] on the tenth day.
Here, along the defiles up the ascent to the mountain, he was met by
many of the traders equipped with arms, as well as by the independent
Thracians, who had made preparations to check the further advance of
his expedition by seizing the summit of the Haemus, along which was the
route for the passage of his army. They had collected their waggons,
and placed them in front of them, not only using them as a rampart
from which they might defend themselves, in case they should be forced
back, but also intending to let them loose upon the phalanx of the
Macedonians, where the mountain was most precipitous, if they tried to
ascend. They had come to the conclusion[25] that the denser the phalanx
was with which the waggons rushing down came into collision, the more
easily would they scatter it by the violence of their fall upon it.
But Alexander formed a plan by which he might cross the mountain with
the least danger possible; and since he was resolved to run all risks,
knowing that there were no means of passing elsewhere, he ordered the
heavy-armed soldiers, as soon as the waggons began to rush down the
declivity, to open their ranks, and directed that those whom the road
was sufficiently wide to permit to do so should stand apart, so that
the waggons might roll through the gap; but that those who were hemmed
in on all sides should either stoop down together or even fall flat
on the ground, and lock their shields compactly together, so that the
waggons rushing down upon them, and in all probability by their very
impetus leaping over them, might pass on without injuring them. And it
turned out just as Alexander had conjectured and exhorted. For some
of the men made gaps in the phalanx, and others locked their shields
together. The waggons rolled over the shields without doing much
injury, not a single man being killed under them. Then the Macedonians
regained their courage, inasmuch as the waggons, which they had
excessively dreaded, had inflicted no damage upon them. With a loud
cry they assaulted the Thracians. Alexander ordered his archers to
march from the right wing in front of the rest of the phalanx, because
there the passage was easier, and to shoot at the Thracians where they
advanced. He himself took his own guard, the shield-bearing infantry
and the Agrianians,[26] and led them to the left. Then the archers
shot at the Thracians who sallied forward, and repulsed them; and
the phalanx, coming to close fighting, easily drove away from their
position men who were light-armed and badly equipped barbarians. The
consequence was, they no longer waited to receive Alexander marching
against them from the left, but casting away their arms they fled down
the mountain as each man best could. About 1,500 of them were killed;
but only a few were taken prisoners on account of their swiftness of
foot and acquaintance with the country. However, all the women who were
accompanying them were captured, as were also their children and all
their booty.
CHAPTER II.
BATTLE WITH THE TRIBALLIANS.
Alexander sent the booty away southward to the cities on the
seashore,[27] entrusting to Lysanias and Philotas[28] the duty of
setting it up for sale. But he himself crossed the summit, and
advancing through the Haemus into the land of the Triballians, he
arrived at the river Lyginus.[29] This river is distant from the
Ister[30] three days’ march to one intending to go to the Haemus.