If the turbulent life of Alexander the Great is known to us in more or less detail, then his death in less than thirty-three years remains a mystery: did he die a natural death or did he fall victim to a political conspiracy? In the historical literature, the possibility of the latter is usually denied. Bourgeois authors (I. G. Droizen, G. F. Herzberg, F. Schachermeyer, P. Kloche)1 the causes of the Macedonian king's death are usually reduced to illness. Nor does our Soviet historiography provide anything fundamentally new on this issue. Thus, S. I. Kovalev shares the idea that Alexander's body, exhausted by superhuman stress, could not withstand malaria 2. A. B. Ranovich also believes that Alexander died of the disease, and does not mention other versions 3 . All these claims, however, are based on a study of sources that present only the official version, according to which Alexander, after returning to Babylon, fell ill with some severe form of Eastern fever, from which he soon died. But this version was doubtful even in ancient historiography. And although it clearly shows two directions, apologetic and anti-Alexander, in each work of the five ancient authors who left us information about Alexander, you can find evidence of his violent death.

Arrian cites data from the palace diaries, from which it follows that Alexander fell ill with a fever after repeated drinking parties at Media 4 . This is confirmed by Plutarch, who, referring to the same source, writes that Alexander began to have a fever after drinking all night and all the next day .5 Diodorus and Justin 6 write that the sudden illness was caused by heavy drinking of wine during the feast . Sources disagree on how the disease progressed. If there were a unity of views, it would be possible to use the achievements of modern medicine to diagnose and understand the course of the fatal disease. Sometimes it faded, and the patient could listen to friends and even play with the Medium (according to Plutarch) or talk with him (according to Arrian); finally, the disease was accompanied by a high fever (Plutarch) and loss of speech (Plutarch and Arrian) .7 Based on this information, it is difficult to determine the essence of the disease: both its symptoms and the forms in which it occurred remain unclear. It is puzzling why the royal diaries, which recorded in detail much smaller events than Alexander's death, were so stingy in this case. It is possible that Arrian and Plutarch only partially used this source for the sake of the historical concept that existed at that time.

If the supporters of the apologetic version, relying on the news of the royal diaries, try to show the relatively slow course of the disease, then the representatives of the anti-Alexander version emphasize the suddenness of the event, thereby making it clear that it could not have happened without external intervention. So, Diodorus indicates that

1 And Droysen. History of Hellenism. Vol. I. M. 1890, pp. 398-399; G. F. Herzberg. History of Greece, St. Petersburg, 1881, p. 558; F. Schachermeyer. Alexander der Grosse. Wien. 1949; P." Cloche. Alexander le Grand. P. 1961, pp. 112 - 113.

2 S. I. Kovalev. Alexander the Great, L. 1937, p. 110.

3 A. B. Ranovich. Hellenism and its Historical role, Moscow, 1950, p. 76.

4 Arr., VII, 25, 1.

5 Plut. Alex., 75, 77.

6 Diod., XVII, 117, 1 - 2; Just., XII, 13, 8 ss.

7 Plut. Alex., 76; Arr., VII, 25, 2 - 6.

page 214
Alexander, having drunk a large goblet of wine, suddenly, as if struck by a strong blow, gave a loud cry and groaned. His friends carried him out in their arms, put him to bed, and sat with him constantly. The illness was getting worse; doctors were called, but no one could do anything to help him in his severe suffering .8 Justin tells us in no less detail: after taking the cup and drinking half of it, Alexander suddenly groaned, as if pierced by a spear. He was carried away from the feast half-dead, and suffered so much pain that he begged to be given a weapon instead of medicine; even a light touch caused him as much pain as a wound. 9 Justin goes on to state very clearly that this is not a case of some severe form of Eastern fever, but of an insidious murder, the heinousness of which Alexander's powerful and influential successors managed to conceal .10 This idea is also clearly expressed in Curtius and Diodorus. Antipater, as ruler of Macedonia and Greece, had every opportunity to silence any rumors about his participation in the murder. After Alexander's death, he remained the most powerful ruler in Europe, and when some time later his son Cassander took power in the Macedonian state, they did not dare to write about the poisoning. 11 Thus, under the descendants of Antipater, when all those who remained in any kinship with Alexander were exterminated, these rumors could not have been widely spread .12 Still, they crawled. Six years after Alexander's death, his mother, Olimpiada, received a denunciation. She executed many of the guilty, and ordered the remains of the son of Antipater Iollaus (according to rumors, Alexander's killer) to be thrown out 13 . But these rumors could not be completely silenced even after a strict ban on them.

The version about the forcible removal of the Macedonian king is known to all sources without exception. Some accept it as a real fait accompli (Justin); others report the news from the words of other writers, but they themselves fully admit the possibility of poisoning (Curtius, Diodorus); others show their awareness in the news about poisoning, but consider them just fiction (Arrian, Plutarch).

This theory is confirmed, according to Plutarch, by the fact that while the military leaders argued and quarreled for a number of days, no signs of decomposition were found on the body of the deceased, despite the extremely hot climate of Mesopotamia .14 Curtius cites the same news about the absence of signs of decay on the body, but does not connect it with the denial of the possibility of poisoning. 15 Even if we accept the point of view of those who considered the rumors about poisoning unfounded, then even then we need to explain why these rumors could arise. To Arrian and Plutarch, who drew an idealized image of Alexander, the idea of physically eliminating him with a powerful poison seemed blasphemous and implausible. Meanwhile, in a comparative analysis of all the information that has come down to us, taking into account the difficult situation of the acute social struggle in the army, the possibility of Alexander's death as a result of a political conspiracy should be considered quite probable.

First of all, the sources mention Media, with whom Alexander was at the feast and where he felt ill. Who is Media? Justin calls him a Thessalian , 16 and Arrian is the most loyal man "among those who were close to him at that time."17 Plutarch's testimony is noteworthy that Alexander, having barely survived the death of Hephaistion, again engaged in feasts and feasts, the main organizer of which was Media. It was at the latter's request that Alexander neglected to rest, went to his feast, and there the king began to have a fever .18 Arrian cites the opinion of some ancient historians (without naming them by name )that Medius deliberately invited Alexander to the feast, who intended to go to bed, and only at his insistence did he stay there. Arriane gives another interesting detail. Medius was a friend of Iollaus, the son of Antipater . Justin, confirming this, directly points to Media as a direct accomplice to the crime.

In all sources, the crime is associated with the house of Antipater. Arriane, please-

8 Diod., XVII, 117, 1 - 2.

9 Just., XII, 13, 8 - 9.

10 Ibid., 13, 10.

11 Diod., XVII, 118, 2.

12 Curt., X, 18 - 19.

13 Plut. Alex., 77.

14 Ibid.

15 Curt., X, 10, 9.

16 Just., XII, 13, 7; cp. Diod., XVII, 117, 1.

17 Arr., VII, 24, 4.

18 Plut. Alex., 75.

19 Arr., VII, 24, 4.

20 Ibid., 27, 2.

page 215
while giving the version of the murder, he still shows his awareness of the rumors caused by the death of the king. He begins the presentation with the word "tell" and thus emphasizes that he knows about the rumors, but does not express confidence in them. From these accounts, it follows that Alexander died of a poison sent by Antipater. The poison was made by Antipater's adviser Aristotle, who feared for his fate after the tragedy of Callisthenes. Cassander, son of Antipater, 21 passed the poison to his younger brother Iollaus, the king's cupbearer, whom Alexander had offended in some way shortly before his death. According to other stories, the accomplice of the murder was Media, who invited Alexander to a feast for this purpose, where he drank a cup, felt sharp pains and as a result of them left the feast.

More details can be found in Plutarch. First of all, he claims that Alexander was particularly afraid of Antipater and his sons. The youngest was the chief cupbearer, and the eldest, Cassander, had recently arrived and was beaten by Alexander for making fun of Persian customs. The latter inspired him with a horror that had not left him for many years. Cassander's fear of the king did not leave him even when he himself became king of Macedonia and ruler of Hellas. When he saw the statue of Alexander at Delphi one day, his whole body shook, his hair stood on end, he hardly came to himself, he was dizzy .22 Plutarch gives evidence ("according to some") about the complicity in the murder of Antipater's adviser Aristotle, with the help of which the poison was obtained. The poison was icy water leaking from a rock in Nonacrid. It was collected in a donkey's hoof, because no dishes could withstand its cold and acridness and cracked to pieces. This was related by a certain Gagnothemus, who had heard about it from King Antigonus .23
Justin, not doubting that " Alexander was broken not by the valor of the enemy, but by the treachery of those close to him and the treachery of his subjects,"24 expresses his confidence that Alexander died as a result of a plot conceived and carried out by Antipater. Justin explains this action for the following reasons:: 1) Antipater was afraid of the execution of the tsar's best friends, the governors of the conquered regions, and the murder of his own son-in-law, the Lincesian; 2) Alexander's hatred for him, as evidenced by the non-recognition of his exploits and merits in Greece; 3) Antipater's insult and slander on him by Alexander's mother Olympias; 4) Antipater's challenge from Macedonia to the East, perceived by as a sign of impending reprisal 25 . These reasons forced the old general to carry out an insidious plan through the hands of his sons Cassander, Philip and Iollaus, who served the king. Antipater gave the poison to Cassander, warning him not to trust anyone but the Thessalian Medius and his brothers. The murder should have taken place at the feast of Media, where everything was prepared. Philip and Iollaus were to taste and dilute the king's drink beforehand, and the poison was poured into cold water, which they used to dilute the drink they had previously tasted. The poison was so strong that it could not be stored in copper, iron, or earthen vessels, and it could only be transferred in dishes made from a horse's hoof .26
Curtius reports the "opinion of others" about this conspiracy. This confirms the guilt of Antipater and the direct perpetrator of the murder, his son Iollaus. The author emphasizes the fact of the tsar's negative attitude towards his viceroy in Macedonia. Alexander reproached him for claiming the royal dignity, proud of his victory over the Spartans, imagining himself superior in strength to an ordinary military commander, and considering everything that he received from the king as insufficient reward for his zeal. Sending the Crater with a detachment of veterans to Europe was perceived as an event to carry out the murder of a dangerous, arrogant commander. But this general forestalled the king and put him to death with the poison that Iollai had given him by order of his father. 27 The power of the poison extracted in Macedonia from the source of Styx was exceptional: it tore even horseshoes. The poison was brought by Cassander and passed on to his brother Iollaus, who poured the poison into the king's cup 28 .

He did not ignore the statements of ancient writers about the poisoning of Alexander and Diodorus. In his short story, these are sobs-

21 Arrian mistakenly calls Cassander the brother of Antipater.

22 Plut. Alex., 74.

23 Ibid., 77.

24 Just., XII, 16, 12.

25 Ibid., 14, 1 - 4.

26 Just., XII, 14, 6 - 9.

27 Curt., X, 10, 14 - 15.

28 Ibid., 10, 16 - 17.

page 216
tiye also gets involved with Antipater, who had a feud with Olympias. The enmity did not subside, but grew with the connivance of Alexander, who at first did not attach any importance to it, and then began to please his mother. Antipater in many cases revealed his dislike for the king. In addition, the deaths of Philotes and Parmenion caused many to shudder .29 Not only Antipater, but also his son Cassander was extremely negative about Alexander's actions. When the latter became king of Macedon, he killed Alexander's mother and left her body unburied, destroyed his entire family, and rebuilt Thebes, which had been destroyed by Alexander, "with great care." 30
Thus, sources, whether they accept the version of the murder, or deny it, citing only the stories of others, all without exception connect this event with Antipater and his family. Simply denying this fact or declaring it a fiction is the easiest thing to do.

Antipater and Alexander are a whole problem associated with the activation of anti-Alexander forces, whose goal was to change the course of events by eliminating Alexander. Previous attempts to resolve the issue ended in failure. The conspiracy of Philotes in 330 BC, the conspiracy of the "pages" in 327 were promptly revealed. Only the plot of Antipater was carried out. The fact that such a conspiracy, headed by the Macedonian governor, could have taken place, is evidenced by the events in the East and in Macedonia on the eve of 323, during which the interests of Alexander and Antipater clashed most acutely. The anti-Alexander opposition led by Antipater was formed gradually and somewhat later than the opposition in the Macedonian army itself in the East. The fact that, of all the Macedonian generals, Antipater ranked first in the state after the king, best indicates his loyalty to the royal house. Even in the time of Philip II, Antipater proved to be an outstanding general and diplomat in numerous enterprises of the king .31 He was distinguished by a sharp mind, military and diplomatic abilities, which were especially pronounced in relations with the Greeks; he was highly educated, close to Aristotle and Isocrates. The latter sent letters to him 32 . Antipater was considered an outstanding writer and left behind, in addition to the history of Philip's Illyrian campaigns, two books of his own letters .33 He had a great and cordial friendship with Philip. Antipater also maintained his loyalty to Philip's son. After the latter's assassination, he resolutely sided with Alexander and, together with his other associates, helped strengthen the new tsar on the throne. Alexander appreciated this loyalty and not only promoted Antipater to one of the first places in the state, but also fulfilled the most difficult request of the commander - to ease the fate of his closest relatives who were involved in the murder of Philip .34
Even before the Eastern campaigns and during their preparation, Antipater carried out important tasks. He ruled the state when Alexander made his Balkan campaign in 335. Therefore, it seemed natural to everyone that during the campaign to Asia in the spring of 334, it was he who was appointed administrator in the state of the Macedonians and strategist of Europe .35 This position Antipater performed with a fine knowledge of the case, following the interests of the royal house of Macedonia. He protected the borders of the state and Macedonian influence in the Aegean basin from the dangerous intention of the Persian commander-in-chief Memnon to transfer the war to the European coast; prevented any anti-Macedonian movements in the Balkans; provided systematic assistance with human contingents and material resources to Alexander's army fighting in the East. Constant communication was maintained between Alexander and Antipater .36 All of this can give the impression that there has been no change in their relationship. Meanwhile, the internal estrangement that had gradually developed between them turned into hostility, and then into hostility. In the ancient tradition, there is no consensus on this issue. Sources put forward the version that the disputes arose because of the enmity between the governor and the mother of the king Olympias. That such enmity really exists-

29 Diod., XVII, 118, 1.

30 Ibid., 118, 2.

31 Berve, II, 94.

32 Suidas; Aelian, V. h., XIV, 1; Isocr. Epict., IV; cf. III, 1.

33 Suidas; cf. Cic. De offic., II, 14, § 48.

34 Arr., I, 25, 1 - 2.

35 Ibid., I, 11, 3; Diod., XVII, 17, 6; XVIII, 12, 1; Just., XI, 7. 1.

36 Plut. Alex., 20, 46, 55, 57; cf. Arr., VII, 12, 7.

page 217
Vova, there is no doubt. Arrian points out that both Antipater and Olympias constantly wrote letters to Alexander full of counter-accusations and mutual ill-will. The governor reported on the arrogance of the Olympics, its sharpness, and interference in all matters. She, in turn, wrote that the respect and honor shown to Antipater had turned his head, that he had forgotten to whom he owed it, that he considered himself entitled to take the first place in Macedonia and in Hellas. 37
Plutarch notes that Alexander sent many gifts to his mother, but did not allow her to interfere either in state affairs or in the orders of the troops. She reproached him for this, but he bore her displeasure calmly .38 Although Alexander was impressed by all his mother's lies, he did not change his attitude towards Antipater and even ordered him to keep a guard with him, because a conspiracy was being formed against him. Thus, the Alexander tradition does not see in the enmity of Olympias and Antipater the reasons for the fundamental differences between him and the tsar. In the anti-Alexandrian tradition, the deep estrangement between Antipater and the tsar is explained not by domestic intrigues, but by deeper reasons caused by Alexander's "Eastern policy". Antipater rejected the deification of the monarch, being of different views, as well as out of religious concerns, and was not sympathetic to the unification policy, in which, as a representative of the Macedonian nobility, he saw the humiliation of his people and his own position, and as a friend of Aristotle, he felt guilty about Hellenic culture .39 In addition, the deaths of Philotes and Parmenion caused the "friends"to shudder .40 Parmenion was an old battle friend of Antipater, and his unjustified death increased the Macedonian governor's dislike for the king. To this was added the almost simultaneous execution of Antipater's son-in-law, the Lincesian, which foreshadowed a future catastrophe that loomed over the recalcitrant Macedonian nobility .41
Alexander's order to transfer power over Macedonia to Craterus, and Antipater's order to come with a new contingent of troops to Babylon, apologetic tradition puts in connection with the king's desire not to deepen the existing disagreements between Antipater and Olympias. Finally succumbing to his mother's insinuations, the king decided to remove Antipater from Macedonia. This removal, however, did not mean opals 42 . In the anti-Alexander tradition, this fact is associated with the unreliability of Antipater, who did not share the policy of the king. Curtius points out that there were some in the army who thought that Craterus and a squad of veterans were sent to kill Antipater. 43 He and his sons were especially feared by the king, writes Plutarch44 . It is only natural that when the old general was ordered to go East, he feared the reprisal that would be Parmenion's fate . Therefore, he took precautions and was the first to strike at the hands of his sons and associates.

Thus, the counterverses of ancient sources give us a number of proofs of the physical elimination of the tsar. Attempts on Alexander's life were not isolated. Curtius points out that even before the battle of Gavgamela, letters from Darius were intercepted in which he incited Greek soldiers to kill or hand over Alexander to him. 46 If previous attempts to physically eliminate the tsar were unsuccessful, then it is impossible to exclude the possibility of repeating attempts at the time of Alexander's highest effort and weakening his body with a serious illness.

The activities of Antipater are further evidence of the existence of a large anti-Alexander opposition both in the East and in the West. Alexander's opponents were active not only in his Eastern Army, but also in Macedonia itself, where they were inspired by its governor, the outstanding general Antipater. This force, along with a large anti-Macedonian movement among the conquered peoples, not only destroyed Alexander, but also contributed to the collapse of his empire.

37 Arr., VII, 12, 6 - 7.

38 Plut. Alex., 39.

39 Suidas; see Berve, II, N 94.

40 Diod., XVII, 118, 1.

41 Ibid.; Just., XII, 14, 1 - 2.

42 Arr., VII, 12, 4-6; cf. Just., VII, 12, 9.

43 Curt., X, 10, 15.

44 Plut. Alex., 74.

45 Just., XII, 14, 5.

46 Curt., IV, 10, 16 - 17.

page 218

Permanent link to this publication: