Word versus Word

     While conquering the world, Alexander’s army relied on the phalanx formations for military movement forcing each man to rely on the defense of the man beside him; despite the army’s reliance on each other, after the fall of the Persian Empire, Alexander’s leaders’ phalanx-alliance split and began to fall in on itself as the enemy beside became more deadly than the enemy ahead. An excellent, early example of this mounting distrust and unease is Alexander's suspicion and ultimate execution of his heretofore trusted general Philotas. Philotas’ alleged conspiracy demonstrates the conflicts Alexander faced after the fall of the Persian empire. The accounts of this event vary in their presentations in ancient sources which create various interpretations of the occurrence. Key surviving ancient records include those of Plutarch, Quintus Curius Rufus, and Arrian which mostly confirm the reliability of the event.
     Plutarch primarily focuses on Philotas’ character, but clearly describes the order in which the conspiracy was discovered. During his examination of the trial, Plutarch only mentions evidence that had been well established through Philotas’ mistress’s secret reports to Alexander, who endured Philotas’ insults in silence. The consequences of Philotas’ trial resulted in Parmenion’s execution. Alexander’s underhanded elimination of two very prominent officers instilled a previously unknown fear in his remaining commanders. A further catalyst for this fear was Alexander’s murder of Cleitus shortly after this incident.
     Since Quintus Curius Rufus focused mainly on the social and political portions of Alexander’s conquests, he provides a very descriptive analysis of the events surrounding Philotas’ trial. Like Plutarch, Rufus initiates the conspiracy plot with Dimnos’ confession to his homosexual lover. This key information is brought to Philotas’ attention but is rejected due to the unreliability of its source.1 Because of the delay in Alexander’s reception of the conspiratory information, he charged Philotas with treason. A secret meeting afterward confirmed Philotas’ guilt through a confession under torture. When brought on trial already in chains, Philotas unsuccessfully defended himself against hateful attacks by other generals and Alexander himself. Although Philotas was accused of treason and executed, none of the other conspirators ever named Philotas as being involved.2
     After concluding the guilt of Philotas and the others, the conspirators were stoned, Parmenion was assassinated, and Alexander Lyncestes was executed after three years of imprisonment.3 The quick verdict and sketchy evidence used in Philotas’ conviction later affected different conspirators’ approach to both assassinating and warning Alexander, notably in the example of the basileus paiges.
     Quintus Curius Rufus provides several reasons which motivated the mutinous plots against Alexander. While on trial Hegalochus, a conspirator with the paiges, shouted his desire to eliminate Alexander for the following: Alexander’s adoption of Persian mannerisms, his belittling of Philip II’s and the army’s contributions, the oppression Alexander enforced on the Macedonian victors of his conquest while allowing the losers a lighter yoke of burden, and Alexander’s demand of prokinesis. With the conquest of Persia complete, Alexander began acting like a master over slaves which free Macedonians naturally rejected.
     While Plutarch focuses on character and Quintus Curius Rufus studies social and political factors, Arrian preserves a militaristic viewpoint which minimizes his comments on Philotas’ trial but allows for a fuller analysis of the effects on the army as the conspiracies continued. Philotas had commanded a large portion of the Companion cavalry, but after his execution, Alexander no longer permitted any one general to control such a large portion of his troops and consequently split Philotas’ old squadrons between Hephastion and Cleitus the Black.
     The consistency throughout the sources of Alexander’s learning of the plot assists in its factuality; modern authors concur. Although the causes for the conspiracies mesh nicely in the ancient sources, a Macedonian social tradition that escapes ancient authors’ attention; Macedonian kings normally died by assassination or in battle. This bloody tradition helped motivate Alexander’s later paranoia about conspiracy.4 As Alexander went further east, the toils of the campaign increased while the rewards shrunk. The resulting rigors inflamed resentment in the army.
     Alexander changed several policies in the wake of Philotas’ trial. His paranoia began to express itself both through Philotas’ death as well as Parmenion’s, which was more for what might be done than any disloyal action previous to the assassination. This paranoid killing spree eventually eliminated all capable heirs to Alexander’s throne and terrified the remaining commanders into submission since outspokenness against Alexander meant risking his anger. Modern authors also agree with the ancients that Alexander’s mistrust of generals forced him to break military units further among commanders to minimize the impact a general would have in attempts to oust Alexander.
     Each ancient source contributes to the overall comprehension of Philotas’ trial through different author’s focuses on varied topics. Plutarch contributes significantly in understanding Philotas’ character and interaction with the other officers around him. While explaining the history leading up to the event with sufficient detail, Plutarch neglects the conflicts of the trial itself. Quintus Curius Rufus thoroughly explains each step progressively throughout the event but lacks any defined consequences other than the immediate. Arrian, the opposite of Quintus Curius Rufus, neatly generalizes the entire proceedings up to Philotas’ execution and carefully analyzes the results of the verdict both on the army as a whole as well as on Alexander himself. By neglecting even one of these sources in analyzing any event in Alexander’s life, key information is lost and bias in the authors’ focus is emphasized whether in reference to politics, military, or psychology.

     History is composed of the lives and actions of billions of people. Analysis of history should call upon multiple sources and different accounts wherever possible to make full use the lessons of the past have on the present.

1 Rufus and Plutarch concur on the order of events leading up to Philotas’ trial. Philotas rejected the information because it came from the brother of a male prostitute during a quarrel between lovers.
2 Alexander’s main accusation of Philotas was guilt through silence. Philotas knew of his condemnation before the verdict since he gave his defense in chains, and Alexander, while present for the accusations, left during Philotas’ defense, signifying a lack of an aquittal.
3 Since “Philip was safer in combat than in the theatre: often avoiding the hands of his enemies, he could not escape those of his own people,” Alexander attempted to protect himself from possible threats.
4 Because “Great men have often met their ends at the hands of insignificant agents or even for relatively minor causes,” Alexander can be justified for executing Philotas for negligence.

 __    
Agatha Tyche

Thirst for Glory

     In The Illiad Achilles agrees to fight alongside Agnememnon's Greek coalition against Troy to obtain eternal fame, glory, immortality. In The Aeneid Achilles is met after centuries in the afterlife and confesses that if he had known how empty victories were after death, he would have lived as long as possible. Despite that advice, Horatio Nelson strong of body, mind, and heart still sought battlefield victory to earn a place in the annals of history and the admiration of their fellow British subjects.
     Born into an unremarkable but comfortable household, Horatio Nelson used family connections to join a British naval ship at twelve where he traveled to the Indian Ocean and the Arctic. After experience in the West Indies during the American Revolutionary War, he was promoted to lieutenant and later captain. His exploits were not unsuccessful but were unpopular because his enforcement of the Navigation Act hurt the incomes of other British captains involved in war smuggling with American merchants. At this rejection from fellow officers, Nelson's low morale led him to his wife who returned with him to England while wasting the time away between British involvement in the American and French Revolutions.
     Losing his right eye at Calvi in 1794 and his right arm at Santa Cruz de Tenerife in 1797, Nelson captained the Agnememnon through the Mediterranean. At Cape St. Vincent, Nelson led an attack against a fleet of twenty-seven Spanish ships and alone fought off seven ships before his allies could reach the line.
One of the best examples of his genius and exploitation of his contemporaries's expectations, the Battle of the Nile in 1798 had Nelson's fleet decimate Napoleon's anchored ships and eliminated the French attempt to control the Suez Canal. A disaster for the French, Nelson's brilliant attack forced Napoleon to return to France without his army and without victory.
     From a social standpoint, Nelson's most controversial brash act came while stationed at Napels shortly after the Battle of the Nile where he met Emma, his soul-mate mistress. By 1801 they were living together and had a daughter, but Nelson never divorced his wife. Despite his personal life's scandal, one of his most famous audacious acts occurred at the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801. Putting a telescope to his blind eye, he announced that he could not see the order to retreat. Victory in the resulting battle from this bold move gained him enormous popularity with the British public but created some tension with his high command.
     After a long trans-Atlantic chase for the Spanish Armada, Nelson's fleet blockaded a large French-Spanish fleet at Cadiz, Spain. Under severe beratement by Napoleon and with the threat of losing command, the French Admiral Pierre Villeneuve sailed to meet Nelson. Outnumbered and with a weak wind, the British ships split into two columns and attacked the French-Spanish fleets head-on. Once the line broke, the British leads raked the enemy and divided the French column into three segments. The British had 27 ships but suffered no casualties against a combined French-Spanish navy of 33 ships that suffered seventeen captured and one sunk. Though Nelson lost his life in the battle, his reputation as a brilliant naval commander and the results of the Battle of Trafalgar secured British safety from a Napoleon invasion and gave them undisputed dominance of the sea for a full century.

     The legend of Admiral Nelson can never be separated from the Battle of Trafalgar. When news of the victory reached England on November 5, 1805, emotions mixed triumph with the loss of Nelson. Preserved in brandy, Nelson's body was returned to England where unprecedented, enormous crowds marched for his funeral. His body was laid to rest in an ebony sarcophagus originally commissioned by King Henry VIII three centuries earlier in St. Paul's Cathedral in London.
     Despite poor ongoing reports on the continent, the naval battle secured Britain from invasion and helped lead to Napoleon's defeat. The destruction of the alliance navy decimated Napoleon's confidence in his naval forces which led him to attempt to beat Britain economically with the continental system. This economic warfare led to tension with Spain and Russia and incited the Peninsular War which significantly contributed to Napoleon's defeat.
     Aside from giving his country security for the rest of the Napoleonic Wars, Nelson's victory at Trafalgar initiated the uncontested dominance of the British navy over oceanic traffic for over a century. This undisputed naval power enabled the blossoming of the great British Empire under Queen Victoria so that the sun could never set over the vast holdings. "England demands that every man should do his duty." That is exactly what Nelson did.

 __    
Agatha Tyche