To Sogdiana and back: Demodamas, the Branchidae, and Apollo Didymeus
Abstract
58
Full text
To Sogdiana and back: Demodamas, he B anchidae, and
Apollo Didymeus
Ma c Mendoza
ABSTRACT
The massac e o he B anchidae in Sogdiana s ill s ands as one o he mos con o e sial miles ones o Alex-
ande ’sca ee . Mode n assessmen s o his e en ha e been highly pola ized, bu how was i pe cei ed bo h
by con empo a y w i e s and he ci izens o Mile us, he B anchidae’shomeland? Demodamas, as aw i e
and as aMilesian, ga he s bo h aspec s. Ba ely known h ough some insc ip ions om Mile us and sca e ed
agmen s o his wo k, Demodamas is a es ed as aSeleucid o ice in Cen al Asia– e ec ing an al a o
Apollo Didymeus– and India, and he could ha e pa icipa ed in Alexande ’sexpedi ion. I is plausible ha
he w o e his own e sion o he massac e and, he e o e, he could be ega ded as one o he ea lies sou ces
abou he episode. This pape , i s , aims o cla i y i his e sion could be he o igin o he ex an adi ions.
Besides his, i seeks o add ess how he w i e ’sbackg ound could ha e shaped his e sion, and he place
his s o y ook in he his o y o Mile us and i s somehow ho ny dealings wi h Alexande . To sum up, his
pape will assess how Demodamas could ha e con eyed his episode ha happened in a away Sogdiana and
how i was inco po a ed in o he Milesian collec i e memo y.
KEY WORDS
Demodamas; B anchidae: Sogdiana; Mile us; Alexande .
INTRODUCTION
The au hen ici y o he episode o Alexande and he B anchidae has been widely discussed
by schola s (e.g., Rawlinson 1912, 41; Ta n 1922; Ta n 1948, 272–275; Pea son 1955, 240, n.
121; Pa ke 1985; Boswo h 1988, 108–109; Fon en ose 1988, 12–13; Hol 1989, 75; Kulesza
1994, 245–246; Hammond 1998; Flowe 2000, 117–118; Panchenko 2002; Sie a 2013; Kubica
2016, 146–148). The sole de ailed, ex an e sion comes om Cu ius ( ii, 5.28–35); besides his,
only some spa se passages om Callis henes (FG His 124F 14 apud. S abo x ii, 1.43), S abo
(xi, 11.4, xi , 1.5), Plu a ch (Mo ., 557b; c . Pa ke 1985b, 65), and Aelian (F 57 Domingo -Fo as é
apud Suda s. . Βραγχίδαι) ha e been p ese ed.1 The s o y is well known: Alexande a i ed
in a own in Sogdiana whe e he Milesian B anchidae had been dwelling since he Pe sian
Wa s. The king delega ed he ques ion o wha o do wi h hem o he Milesians in he a my,
bu a e assessing hei disag eemen , he ook he eins o he si ua ion and decided o kill
all he B anchidae.
1 Diodo us also w o e abou his episode acco ding o Book x ii’s able o con en s: ‘How he B anchi
-
dae, who o old had been se led by he Pe sians on he bo de s o hei kingdom, we e slain by Al-
exande as ai o s o he G eeks’ (Welles 1963, ansl.). Un o una ely, his passage is los , a ec ed
by his book’sg ea cen al lacuna. On A ian/P olemy’ssilence, see Pa ke 1985b, 65; Panchenko
2002, 245.
STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2, 58–84
59MARC MENDOZA
The aim o his pape is no o p esen ade ailed discussion abou i s his o ici y. A e
assessing he di e en aspec s o his episode elsewhe e (Mendoza 2019, 71–78; c . Mendoza
2016, 90–91 n. 109, 113–115), I hink he e a e no inhe en easons o dismiss i ou igh . Ce -
ainly, some doub s can be cas on ce ain de ails, bu he co e in o ma ion can be ega ded as
his o ical. F om he a o emen ioned passages, i can be deduced ha he episode had amo e
o less widesp ead ci cula ion in An iqui y. We know ha Callis henes w o e abou i , bu ,
besides him, we a e igno an o which o he p ima y au ho s would ha e ecoun ed his
s o y. Some his o ians, like A is obulus o he ubiqui ous Clei a chus (e.g., Ta n 1922; Ta n
1948, 272–275; B own 1978; Hammond 1980, 298, n. 131; Hammond 1983, 141–142, 193; P andi
1985, 83–87, 95, 107–108; A kinson– Ga giulo 2000, 466), ha e been posi ed, bu he e is no
compelling a gumen o unques ionably accep any o hem. Cu iously enough, an especially
close sou ce– bo h ch onologically and geog aphically– has no been aken in o conside a ion
so a : Demodamas o Mile us. Could his accoun be one o he o iginal sou ces used by some
o he ex an e sions?
DEMODAMAS OF MILETUS
We ha e some spa se, bu in e es ing in o ma ion abou Demodamas’ li e and ca ee . The e
a e clea indica ions ha he would ha e been in Cen al Asia and India. He ook pa in an
expedi ion– o , maybe, se e al– he e, and he e ec ed al a s o Apollo Didymeus by he i e
Jaxa es (Pliny NH i, 16(18).49; Solinus 49.5; Ma ianus Capella i, 692).
2
The e has been some
discussion abou he da e o ha o hose expedi ions: igh be o e Seleucus’ Indian campaign
(ca. 306 BC) o du ing he join ule o Seleucus and his son An iochus, when he la e was
uling he eas e nmos sa apies (293–281 BC).3 He w o e abook con aining, a leas , some
geog aphical in o ma ion abou Indian owns (S ephanus Byzan inus s. . Ἄντισσα; He odiani
Technici Reliquiae iii/1, 268, ll. 19–20). This agmen abou India migh sugges ha Demodamas
ook pa in Seleucus’ campaign agains Chand agup a oo. The e o e, he highe ch onology
looks mo e plausible o me, bu i does no exclude o he expedi ions in Cen al Asia la e
on. The e o e, his pa icipa ion in se e al campaigns in he egion is no unlikely– he migh
ha e e en been empo a ily appoin ed he e. This book p obably was amili a y memoi o
so s, con aining miscellaneous in o ma ion abou he places he isi ed as well; he w o e
abou his own e ec ion o he al a s.4 He also au ho ed, a leas , abook abou Halica nassus
(A henaeus x , 682e).5 Some ancien w i e s unde lined his eliabili y,6 and i has been sug-
2 Robe (1984, 468) conclusi ely p o ed ha Solinus elied on Pliny o his passage. The accoun s
a e coinciding.
3 Despi e hei p e e ed op ion, nowadays, mos schola s ha e no excluded he possibili y o
mul iple campaigns, especially a e Robe 1984. See Bicke man 1938, 73; G ainge 1990, 154;
She win -Whi e– Kuh 1993, 19, 26; Sa alli -Les ade 1998, 4–5, n° 3; Nawo ka 2008, 147;
Nawo ka 2019, 272; Ramsey 2016, 89–90; Bea zo 2017, 144. De ending only An iochus’ da ing,
see Haussoulie 1900, 36, 48–49; Ta n 1940, 92–94; Wolski 1984, 13; Kosmin 2014, 61–67.
4 Pliny (NH i, 16(18).49) explici ly s a es ha Demodamas was he main sou ce o his desc ip ion
o Cen al Asia (quem maxime sequimu in his), whe e he passage abou he al a s is ound.
5 This wo k a oused some con usion among bo h ancien and mode n au ho s abou whe e he was
ac ually bo n. Ne e heless, his ex ensi e epig aphical e idence in Mile us (see below) and his
exclusion o alis o no ewo hy Halica nassian au ho s (Isage 1998) clea ly poin o aMilesian
o igin. See Robe 1984, 467–468; Zecchini 1999, 60; Bea zo 2017, 145–146.
6 Solinus (49.5) labelled him as ‘sa is idoneus e o auc o ’.
60 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
ges ed ha he migh ha e been asou ce o la e au ho s like Pliny, E a os henes, Diodo us,
o Du is, among o he s.7
Besides he ex ual in o ma ion, Demodamas is also a es ed in some insc ip ions om
his home own, which po ay him as adis inguished membe o Mile us’ ci ic communi y
and show his close connec ions wi h he Seleucids, especially wi h Sogdian Apama (Didyma
479–481).
8
He was one o Seleucus’ philoi (Bea zo 1984, 66–67; Bea zo 2017, 144; Pa ke 1985a,
47–48; Sa alli -Les ade 1998, 4–5, n° 3), al hough we do no know when Demodamas i s me
him. Ada e be ween 316 and 312, when Seleucus pa olled he Ionian coas wi h he P olemaic
lee , has been sugges ed (Seibe 1974, 200–204; Bea zo 1984, 67, 69; Bea zo 2017, 144,
149; Pa ke 1985a, 45–46; Landucci Ga inoni 2013, 42, n. 37),9 bu i is me ely hypo he ical.
These epig aphical documen s clea ly p o e ha Demodamas played akey ole in ea ning
Seleucid pa onage o he econs uc ion o Didyma (She win -Whi e– Kuh 1993, 25–27;
Nawo ka 2008, 146–149).10 The e o e, Demodamas is someone who would ha e had i s -hand
in o ma ion abou he new sh ine and, undoub edly, he would ha e p aised i s magni icence
in he way S abo’spassage e lec s (see below). A chaeological wo k, howe e , e ealed no
clea aces o he new buildings un il 300 BC (Pa ke 1985a, 48–52, 1986, 125; Nawo ka 2008,
148, n. 44; Nawo ka 2010, 157; Nawo ka 2019, 273).
The second insc ip ion (Didyma 480) is especially in e es ing because i could bea some
e e ences o Demodamas’ eas e nmos deeds. Apama was no only honou ed as Didyma’sben-
e ac o bu also o he suppo o he Milesians who had ough in Seleucus’ a my (Ramsey
2016, 89–90, 94). The e o e, ha ing in mind Apama’sCen al Asian o igin and Demodamas’
exploi s in Cen al Asia, i is no a - e ched o ega d Seleucus’ anabasis (ca. 306) as he
occasion du ing which she would ha e displayed he goodwill owa ds he Milesian soldie s
(Robe 1984, 472– ollowing Rehm; Nawo ka 2008, 146–147).11
7 See Bea zo 1984, 62, 79–80 (Du is/Diodo us; c . To elli 1985, 226); Bea zo 2017, 144–145 (E a o-
s henes and Pliny); Wolski 1984, 13 (Pliny); Landucci Ga inoni 2005, 170–178; 2013, 34–36 (Du is/
Diodo us; con a P imo 2009, 79–82, 186; Ogden 2017, 285–286).
8 The iden i ica ion o he sou ces’ Demodamas and he one in he dec ees is well -es ablished since
he i s publica ion o he insc ip ions by Haussoullie (1900, 245–258; Haussoullie 1902, 34–51).
Robe (1984) ec i ied Haussoullie ’sda ing (294 BC) and, in u n, he p oposed 299 BC as he da e
o issue. The i s insc ip ion is an hono i ic dec ee o An iochus and he second, one o Apama,
exp essing ci ic g a i ude o he goodwill and con ibu ions o he sh ine o Didyma. The las doc-
umen is he appoin men o Demodamas as one o he h ee commissione s in cha ge o e ec ing
as a ue o Apamea. One o he o he appoin ees is ace ain A is eides, son o Minnion, who could
be Demodamas’ a he . Howe e , ace ain A is ophon, son o Minnion, is a es ed elsewhe e, so
his second possibili y appea s mo e likely, see Robe 1985, 470. He is also a es ed as esponsible
o ano he s a ue o amembe o he oyal amily– Seleucus acco ding o Robe 1984, 470, n. 23;
c . OGIS 744, 745.
9 Milesians a e a es ed on di e en sides du ing he Diadochi pe iod (e.g., A is odemus wi h he
An igonids; A henago as wi h P olemy; Hippos a us wi h Lysimachus).
10 Besides he a o emen ioned insc ip ions, he e is u he e idence o Seleucus’ pa onage o Didy-
ma. Ano he epig aphical documen a es s o agene ous dona ion in 288/287 (Didyma 424 = RC 5)
and some sou ces ecognize him as he king who e u ned he b onze s a ue o Apollo plunde ed
by he Pe sians: Pausanias i, 16.3, iii, 46.3; c . i, 8.5, iii, 16.8; Vale ius Maximus ii, 10, ex . 1.
11 Ne e heless, i canno be ejec ed ou igh ha i could e e o ala e campaign, a e An iochus
was appoin ed as he ice oy o he eas e n pa o he Seleucid dominions in 294/293. This is he
da ing de ended by Haussoullie (1900, 256–257; Haussoullie 1902, 48–49) and Ta n (1940, 92–93).
They conside ed ha he campaign was ca ied ou hen, a e Pliny’smen ion o he kings Seleucus
61MARC MENDOZA
Demodamas’ e ec ion o he al a s o he god o Didyma a away om home,12 bu close o
whe e he las B anchidae we e pu o dea h, does no look coinciden al and may be ela ed
somehow o his e en (Hammond 1998, 339; Panchenko 2002, 48). Apollo Didymeus was
as ic ly Milesian cul and, he e o e, had ap ima y local/ egional signi icance (Bea zo 2017,
146–147; Nawo ka 2019, 272).
13
Al hough i canno be dismissed ha Demodamas was ollowing
oyal o de s, gi en he Milesian’sgene ous pa onage o he sanc ua y, i appea s mo e likely
ha he dedica ion was Demodamas’ own ini ia i e, especially i he expedi ion ook place ca.
306 BC (c . Nawo ka 2019, 270, 272–273). E en i i we e a oyal ini ia i e, i would also en ail
amainly local, Milesian signi icance.14 As al eady de e mined, he in o ma ion ound in La in
au ho s abou his episode di ec ly de i es om one o his own wo ks. In hese accoun s, i
is in e ed ha he se up he al a s, and his name– no Seleucus, no An iochus– is he one
added o he lis o amous o e unne s. In any case, al hough we do no know o su e, i looks
plausible ha he would also ha e men ioned Alexande ’smassac e o he B anchidae in he
same passage, an e en ha appealed o him di ec ly due o his Milesian o igin. Callis henes’
e sion, a leas , was al eady widesp ead, and aMilesian au ho w i ing abou his own deeds
in Cen al Asia could ha dly ha e a oided i .
DEMODAMAS AND THE SOURCE OF THE MASSACRE OF THE BRANCHIDAE
Hammond sugges ed ha wo passages om S abo migh come, espec i ely, om an au ho
amilia ised wi h Bac ia -Sogdiana (xi, 11.4) and om ano he au ho wi h good knowledge
o he new sanc ua y o Didyma (xi , 1.5)– hus, la e han Alexande ’sea lies his o ians
(Hammond 1998, 341–342).15
Demodamas mee s bo h equi emen s: he had good knowledge o Cen al Asia and Didyma.
The e o e, he e is no need o look o wo di e en au ho s, gi en ha he de ails in bo h
passages emain consis en .16 Mo eo e , his i s -hand in o ma ion abou he new sanc ua y
and An iochus. Howe e , as Robe add essed, his only implied ha he se ed unde he o de s
o bo h ule s.
12 The e a e some o he epig aphical documen s a es ing o Milesians’ dedica ions o Apollo Didymeus
ab oad, such as in Cos (Isc . di Cos EV 14, 192; ca. 84–81 BC) o Egyp (SB 1530; 2nd cen u y).
13 Compa e he mo e uni e sal dedica ions by Alexande . When he landed in Asia, he se al a s o
Zeus Apoba e ios, A hena, and He acles (A ian, An. i, 11.7; o , al e na i ely, o he Twel e Gods
acco ding o Jus in xi, 5.4). A e Issos, he buil al a s o he same gods by he i e Pina us (Cu ius
iii, 12.27). A he Hyphasis, he dedica ed al a s o he Twel e Gods (A ian An. , 29.1–2; Cu ius ix,
3.19; Diodo us Siculus x ii, 95.1; Plu a ch Alex. 62.7–8; Me z Epi ome 69; Pliny NH i, 62(21); S abo
iii, 5.5). Philos a us (VA ii, 43) w o e ha he al a s we e dedica ed o Ammon, He acles, A hena
P onoia, Olympian Zeus, he Samo h acian Cabei i, he Indian Sun God, and Delphic Apollo. A he
Indus’ mou h, he e ec ed al a s o Te hys and Oceanus (Diodo us Siculus x ii, 104.1; Jus in xii, 10.6;
Pliny NH i, 25.110). See Mendoza in p in a.
14 On he possible ole o Demodamas as p omo e o Apollo (Didymeus) as Seleucid pa on god, see
Nawo ka 2008; Nawo ka 2011, 37; Nawo ka 2019, passim; Bea zo 2017, 149–150. C . Mus i 1966,
148–149; G ainge 1990, 164.
15 He concluded ha he i s migh be A is obulus, bu he did no posi any name o he second.
16 S abo conside ed Xe xes as he Achaemenid king who plunde ed Didyma, con a y o some o he
adi ions ha blamed his a he Da ius (He odo us i, 19). I Demodamas is ega ded as he sou ce
used by S abo, he e sion wi h Xe xes would be he one accep ed in Mile us; see Hammond
1998, 342. Seleucus also adop ed his a ian in his p opaganda, and he appea ed as he ec i ie o
Xe xes’ misdeeds when he b ough back he s a ue o Apollo (see no e 10). This ges u e had alocal/
62 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
pu s him in ap e e en ial posi ion in on o o he w i e s, such as A is obulus.17 Ce ainly,
A is obulus was widely used by S abo elsewhe e, bu ha does no exclude he use o o he
sou ces (Mendoza 2019, 72–75), and i has been sugges ed ha some passages migh come om
Demodamas. Fo example, She win -Whi e and Kuh (1993, 83) p oposed ha S abo’schap e
on Ma giana was based on Demodamas’ wo k. Acompa ison wi h he desc ip ion ound in
Pliny, who claimed ha Demodamas was his p incipal sou ce o Cen al Asia (see no e 4),18
is e y elling (my emphasis):
Ma giana is simila o his coun y, al hough i s plain is su ounded by dese s. Admi ing i s
e ili y, An iochus So e enclosed aci cui o i een hund ed s adia wi h awall and ounded
aci y An iocheia. The soil o he coun y is well sui ed o he ine; a any a e, hey say ha as ock
o he ine is o en ound which would equi e wo men o gi h i , and ha he bunches o
g apes a e wo cubi s (S abo xi, 10.2; Jones 1928, ansl.)
Nex comes he Ma giane coun y, amous o i s sunny clima e– i is he only dis ic
in egion whe e he ine is g own; i is shu in all ound by abeau i ul ing o moun ains, 187
miles [1,500 s adia] in ci cui , and is di icul o access on accoun o sandy dese s s e ching o
adis ance o 120 miles; and i is i sel si ua ed opposi e o he egion o Pa hia. In Ma giane
Alexande had ounded aci y bea ing his name, which was des oyed by he ba ba ians, bu
An iochus son o Seleucus e -es ablished aSy ian ci y on he same si e […] he had p e e ed
ha he ci y should be named a e himsel . I s ci cui measu es 8 ¾ miles [70 s adia]. (Pliny
NH i, 16(18).46–47; Rackham 1942, ansl.)
The main de ails emain cons an : a i een -hund ed -s adium egion19 su ounded by de-
se s, well sui ed o he ine. Bo h also w i e abou An iochus’ e ounda ion o aci y named
An iochia, p e iously an Alexand ia.20 I is clea ha hey sha ed acommon sou ce, and
Pliny’scommen pu s Demodamas in ap e e en ial posi ion.21 Mo eo e , Cohen (2013, 246)
e en posi ed ha Demodamas was in ol ed in he e ounda ion. I he ac ually was, i would
egional impac because Seleucus did no exploi he Panhellenic mo i as Alexande did. The e o e,
he would ha e accep ed he Milesian adi ion, and, in consequence, i could be u he e idence
o Demodamas’ ole as an in e media y o his case oo.
17 Howe e , i is no clea how much o he new sh ine Demodamas could ha e ac ually seen in his
li e ime. Bu , being ane e -ending wo k unde cons uc ion, he e was some kind o planning,
unde aken by he 4 h -cen u y Paeonius o Ephesus and Daphnis o Mile us, he a chi ec s o he
emple (Vi u ius ii, p e . 16). The e is also e idence o he ac ual ‘bluep in s’, see Haselbe g
1980; 1983. Ne e heless, he e is also an odd ema k in S abo, when he says ha he emple was
un oo ed due o i s g ea size. In eali y, i was in ended o be his way, like he a chaic Didymeion
was. This de ail could ha dly come om awell -in o med au ho . Howe e , i could be S abo’spe -
sonal in e ence. See Fon en ose 1988, 18, n. 29.
18 The chap e on Ma giana is placed almos igh be o e his s a emen .
19 The e is some con usion abou wha hese 1,500 s adia e e o. S abo says ha i was he pe ime-
e o awall o enclose he a ea whe e An iochus e ounded ase lemen ; Pliny explains ha his
pe ime e was su ounded by moun ains. Fo him, he ci y wall was se en y s adia long. On he
possible aces o he walls, see Cohen 2013, 245–250 (especially, no e 4).
20 Solinus (48.3) and Ma ianus Capella ( i, 691) call i Seleucia, al hough bo h s a e ha i was An i-
ochus who e ounded i .
21 Hammond (1998, 341–342) ega ded A is obulus as S abo’ssou ce o Cen al Asia. Ce ainly, he
is quo ed in some passages (S abo xi, 7.2–3, 11.5), bu his does no exclude S abo’suse o o he
sou ces; indeed, his is e idenced in his passage om Pliny, because A is obulus is no a es ed as
Pliny’ssou ce, and i is clea ha S abo and Pliny elied on he same au ho he e.
63MARC MENDOZA
imply ha Demodamas migh ha e pa icipa ed in An iochus’ campaigns, al hough i does
no ule ou he possibili y ha he also ook pa in Seleucus’ expedi ion (see no e 3).
Fu he mo e, i is possible o posi Demodamas as Aelian’ssou ce as well. The agmen
om Suda seems o e lec alocal sou ce, due o his ecu en emphasis on he B anchidae
ha ing escaped om he Milesians’ hands and his p aising o Apollo Didymeus as an ine i able
a enge . These same mo i s appea in S abo’spassages in books xi and xi , bu , cu iously
enough, he e is no explici men ion o escaping punishmen in he passage om book x ii
whe e i is clea ly s a ed ha Callis henes was his sou ce. Callis henes’ wo ding is ague
(συλάω and περσίζω) han he mo e o mal and legalis ic e ms sha ed by he wo o he passag-
es and Aelian. They we e guil y o sac ilege and eason (ἱεροσυλία καὶ προδοσία).22 Ce ainly,
he a ibu ed c imes a e he same, bu he la e e minology is no ame e desc ip ion, bu
a o mal accusa ion ha en ails alegal punishmen , some hing clea ly s a ed in some o he
passages. They we e no only c iminals bu ‘condemned’ unaways. The h ee passages had
ano ewo hy in ensi y in hei o mula ion ha di e en ia es hem om Callis henes’ mo e
dispassiona e agmen .23
Wha abou Cu ius? His mo e de ailed e sion p ese es unique in o ma ion abou he
ole ca ied ou by Milesian soldie s in he a ai . Al hough i canno be con i med o dismissed,
we can conside ha Demodamas himsel could ha e been one o hose soldie s.24 A e Alex-
ande ’sconques , he new au ho i ies belonged o he p o -Macedonian pa y, eplacing he
p e ious Medizing leade s (see below). We do no know i Demodamas was pa o any o
hose g oups. His name and his a he ’s, A eis ides, a e no ound in olde documen s om
Mile us,25 so he e is no way o assess Demodamas’ amily’ss a us, apa om his own p omi-
nence unde he Seleucids and a e he ci y had ees ablished ademoc a ic sys em. The e o e,
Demodamas could be ei he amembe o a o me oliga chic amily o someone who bene i ed
om he change o egime.26 In consequence, his gene al assessmen o Alexande would ha e
d as ically changed depending on his amily’ss a us when he Macedonians seized Mile us.
Ce ainly, he e is no explici men ion o ale y in Mile us in he Alexande sou ces, bu
he case o Aspendus could poin o a ecu ing p ac ice (A ian An. i, 26.2–27.5; Nawo ka
2010, 153). The si ua ion in ha Pamphylian ci y shows some pa allels wi h ha o Mile us.
22 Aelian’s e sion only explici ly s a es ( wice) he eason (also in Suda s. . Δινδύμοις). Howe e , i
is mo e p ecise abou wha was obbed (ἀναθήματα), which s esses he sac ed na u e o hose ob-
jec s. Mo eo e , i is he mos insis en accoun abou he b oken laws and he empo a ily a oided
punishmen .
23 Plu a ch’spassing ema k (Mo . 557b) also speaks o προδοσία. Cu ius, in u n, employed mo e
gene al exp essions and e bs, such as iolo and inju ia. He also e e s o eason (p odi o um, p odi‑
io), bu as pa o highly he o ical passages, so i is ha d o assess i he was e e ing o o mal
accusa ions. Diodo us’ summa y says ha hey we e slain because hey we e ‘ ai o s o he G eeks’
(ώς προδότας τῶν Ἑλλήνων).
24 Pa ke (1985a, 40; Pa ke 1985b, 66–68) concluded ha he p esence o Milesian soldie s was plausible,
and he sugges ed Demodamas’ p esence oo. See also Nawo ka 2010, 153.
25 Nei he he name o his hypo he ical g and a he , Minnion (see no e 8).
26 Wha is mo e, he conques and Demodamas’ dec ees a e sepa a ed o hi y yea s, du ing which
he and his amily could ha e pe ec ly ein eg a ed hemsel es in o he new sys em and eco e ed
pa o his o me posi ion in he social and ci ic o de . In Didyma 480, one o Demodamas’ dec ees,
he mo ion was pu by Lycus, son o Apollodo us– he also appea s as one o Demodamas’ colleagues
in Didyma 481. Ace ain Apollodo us, son o Molpeus, is a es ed as s ephanépho os in 336/335 (Mile
i3, 122, ii. l. 79). I he was he son o his same man, i could e lec he ein eg a ion o he o me
p o -Pe sian oliga chic amilies in democ a ic Mile us. Howe e , i Demodamas had been a away
due o his mili a y ca ee , his ein eg a ion would no ha e been ha g adual.
64 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
The Aspendians sen a i s embassy o Alexande o su ende he ci y bu asked no o ha e
aga ison es ablished he e. In e u n o ha p i ilege, Alexande asked o he deli e y
o i y alen s and i y ho ses b ed o he G ea King. Howe e , a e Alexande had seized
Side and was on his way o Sillyon, Aspendus de ec ed om Alexande . They had e used
o pay he ag eed alen s and ho ses and had s a ed he p epa a ions o endu ing asiege.
A e Alexande ’squick a i al and ha ing been con ined in he uppe ci y, he Aspendians
sen ano he embassy o Alexande pleading o ees ablish he p e ious ag eemen . The king
did no accep his and ha dened he e ms. He e ained he numbe o ho ses o be deli e ed
bu inc eased he alen s up o one hund ed. In addi ion, he imposed aMacedonian go e no ,
annual ibu es, and meddled in a e i o ial dispu e, a ou ing aneighbou ing ci y, p obably
Side (Boswo h 1980, 168–169; G ainge 2009, 74–75). Finally, he also ook he mos in lu-
en ial ci izens in he ci y as hos ages. In Asia Mino , Alexande also equi ed hos ages om
Soli (A ian An. ii, 12.2) and he Paphlagonians (Cu ius iii, 1.22–24),27 jus like in ea lie and
la e ins ances in his campaign.28 Aclose examina ion o hose cases shows ha he aking o
hos ages was applied in e i o ies whe e con ol was a om being absolu e, and he e had
been a emp s o esis ance o possible de ec ions ha could be o eseen.
Al hough i is no men ioned, Mile us ul illed hese same cha ac e is ics. Ob iously, any
le y would ha e been ocused on he social s a um mos inju ed by he conques and, in
consequence, mo e p one o de ec ion: he p o -Pe sian oliga chy. Ano he possibili y is ha
Milesians became pa o Alexande ’sa my as me cena ies. P ecisely, Mile us’ cap u e end-
ed wi h he in eg a ion o 300 G eek me cena ies in o he Macedonian anks (A ian, An. i,
19.5–6). A ian, howe e , explici ly says ha hese me cena ies we e no he only ones o lee
and ake e uge on anea by island; Milesian de ende s did so oo.
29
The e o e, hose who we e
a ec ed migh ha e been bo h me cena ies and ci izens o Mile us. They we e no he only
G eek me cena ies who we e in eg a ed in o Alexande ’sa my. Se e al ins ances a e a es ed
du ing he campaign, bo h o new ec ui s and o soldie s p e iously igh ing on he Pe sian
side (A ian An. iii, 5.1; Cu ius , 7.12, i, 5.10, 6.35; Diodo us Siculus x ii, 76.2).30
O he Asia Mino na i es pa icipa ed in Alexande ’sexpedi ion as well. Some o hem
e en held o icial appoin men s. In he lis o he Indus’ ie a chs, we can ead he names
o C i obulus o Cos, Thoas and Maeande om Magnesia -on - he -Maeande , and And on/
27 Cu ius iii, 1.22–24. In he la e case, e en hough Cu ius a i ms ha he king en e ed he egion,
A ian (An. ii, 4.1–2) claims ha i was no necessa y. The condi ions we e ag eed upon in Ancy a,
whe e he me aPaphlagonian delega ion. Boswo h (1980, 188) pos ula es ap e ious embassy and
ade ini i e capi ula ion a e ab ie campaign, poin ing ou he pa allelisms wi h he episode o
Aspendus. In acomplemen a y manne , he wen y A henian ships ha he e ained a e disbanding
he lee can be ega ded in he same way (Diodo us Siculus, x ii, 22.5).
28 Th ace: F on inus S a . ii, 11.3; Jus in xi, 5.3. Hy cania: Cu ius i, 5.21; Diodo us Siculus x ii, 76.7–8;
c . A ian An. , 19.6. Sisimi h es: Cu ius iii, 2.31–33. Cho ienes: Cu ius iii, 4.21–22. Andaca: Me z
Epi ome 35. Nysa: A ian An. , 2.2–4. Po us and Abisa es: Me z Epi ome 55–56. Ad es ians: Cu ius
ix, 1.14. Nea Sangala: Cu ius ix, 1.20–23; Polyaenus i , 3.30. Malli and Oxyd acae: A ian An. i,
14.2–3; Cu ius ix, 7.14, 8.1. Epigoni: A ian An. ii, 6.1; Cu ius iii, 5.1; Diodo us Siculus x ii, 108.1;
Plu a ch Alex. 47.6. See Mendoza 2022; Mendoza in p in b.
29 A ian An. i, 19.4: ἔνθα οἱ Μιλήσιοί τε καὶ οἱ μισθοφόροι πανταχόθεν ἤδη προσκειμένων σφίσι τῶν
Μακεδόνων οἱ μὲν αὐτῶν ῥιπτοῦντες σφᾶς ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσπίδων ὑπτίων ἐς νησῖδά τινα
ἀνώνυμον τῇ πόλει ἐπικειμένην διενήχοντο, […]
30 The e is one explici men ion o soldie s om Asia Mino , bu hey a i ed a e he massac e o
he B anchidae (Cu ius ii, 10.11–12; A ian An. i , 7.2). Besides he a es ed a i als, he e is wide
e idence o me cena ies se ing as ga ison o ces o being se led in Alexande ’s ounda ions.
65MARC MENDOZA
Hagnon o Teos (A ian Ind. 18.7; Heckel 2006, 100, 128, 156, 266).31 F om hese names, he
physician C i obulus can be disca ded, because pe haps he had been in he Macedonian cou
since Philip’s eign. No compa ison can be d awn be ween he cases o hei ci ies and Mi-
le us. Magnesia -on - he -Maeande su ende ed o Pa menio (A ian An. i, 18.1), and he e is
no wo d abou Teos, which sugges s ha no p olonged siege occu ed. The e o e, hey would
ha e aken pa in he campaign in adi e en way han he Milesians would ha e. P obably,
he e was no coe cion– o secu i y eason– behind hei inco po a ion in o he a my. Indeed,
he lack o aMilesian cou ie possibly e lec s he un ai disad an age p o oked by hei
esis ance (Nawo ka 2010, 159). In conclusion, aMilesian– and/o Demodamas’– p esence
is no unlikely and he e a e many ways hey could ha e become in ol ed in he campaign.
Re u ning o Cu ius, we see ha he is he only one o p ese e an accu a e accoun o he
episode– Diodo us’ e sion is los – so he e is no way o know how he whole inciden was
desc ibed, i i was, in he sou ces employed by he es o he au ho s (i.e., Aelian, S abo, and
Plu a ch). Demodamas’ agmen s a e ound in Roman and Byzan ine sou ces, so Diodo us
and Cu ius could ha e had access o his books. Howe e , i is possible ha hey did no ead
Demodamas di ec ly, bu used acommon in e media y sou ce. Acompa ison be ween Cu ius’
accoun and Diodo us’ able o con en s e lec s ace ain deg ee o co espondence, al hough
some mino a ia ions a e also a es ed.
In ac , one o hese di e gences conce ns ou episode: Cu ius ( ii, 5.19–26) placed i be‑
o e Bessus’ cap u e, and Diodo us (x ii, 83.7–9) a e i . Ne e heless, Cu ius ( ii, 5.36–40)
did place he ebel’shando e o Alexande a e wha happened in he B anchidae’s illage,
so he appa en incong uence may be due o Diodo us’ o e simpli ied accoun .32 O e all,
hei espec i e na a i es abou Bessus’ cap u e a e no excessi ely di e en , besides he
di e en de ails and names o hose in ol ed in he plo agains Bessus in he Pe sian camp.
These di e gences migh be caused by di e en ocuses when elling he episode (Mendoza
2019, 76–77). Basically, Diodo us concen a ed on he ole played by ace ain Bagoda as– no
a es ed in Cu ius– as he igge o he la e de ec ion, while Cu ius pu he ocus on he
conspi acy o he gene als anonymously men ioned by Diodo us. In conclusion, he easies
op ion is o conside ha hey elied on acommon sou ce, pe haps Clei a chus.33
I we conside ha Demodamas could also be he sou ce o he Vulga a adi ion, his
would mean he w o e be o e his possible in e media y sou ce (i.e., Clei a chus). The ch on-
ological iabili y o his op ion depends on which da e is assigned o each indi idual’sw i ing
ac i i y. In he case o Demodamas, al hough he expedi ions could ha e aken place ea lie ,
he migh no ha e w i en abou hem be o e he ba le o Ipsus.34 The dec ees om Mile us
31 Go gus o Iasus was one o he king’shoplophylax. Besides hese o icials, o he Asia Mino inhab-
i an s a e a es ed in Alexande ’scou , such as he sophis Anaximenes o Lampsacus, he ha pis
A henodo us o Theos, and he poe Choe ilus o Iasus.
32 In ac , Diodo us also included Bessus’ la e execu ion in he same pa ag aph.
33 Du is o Samos has been also sugges ed as he in e media y sou ce be ween Diodo us and Demod-
amas, al hough o some e en s in book xix (see no e 7). Fo Du is as asou ce o Diodo us’ book
x ii, see Fon ana 1955; P andi 2013, x i–xxx. Con a Keb ic 1977, 45–46, 65–66. His use by Cu ius
has been disca ded; see A kinson 1980, 66–67.
34 Ob iously, i his book con ained in o ma ion abou campaigns du ing An iochus’ join ule, he
da e o he w i ing would be lowe . The e is no indica ion o his da es o bi h and dea h. Ta n
(1940, 93–94) placed his dea h be ween 286 and 285. Howe e , i is abaseless in e p e a ion. He
came o his conclusion because he hough ha Demodamas was s a egos– his own ansla ion o
Pliny’sdux– in Bac ia -Sogdiana be o e Pa ocles. Ta n da ed Pa ocles’ se ice be ween 286/285 and
280, so he concluded ha Demodamas had p e iously died. Ne e heless, he e is no e idence ha
66 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
da e om 299 BC and sugges ha Demodamas migh ha e se led down and became an ac-
i e membe in his home own by hen. The e o e, aw i ing da e om 299 onwa ds appea s
as he mos plausible op ion. The e has been alo o deba e abou Clei a chus’ da e, and i is
a beyond he scope o his pape o answe his con o e sial ques ion. Mos p oposals a e
concen a ed on a ange be ween 320 and 260 (e.g., Ta n 1948, 5–43; B own 1950; Pea son
1960, 212–242; Hamil on 1961; Badian 1965; Goukowsky 1976, xix–xxxi; Le i 1977, 83–92;
P andi 1996; Pa ke 2009), al hough some la e da es ha e also been sugges ed.35 Howe e ,
i is clea ha only alow ch onology may be ealis ic, conside ing Demodamas as one o his
sou ces.36 The e o e, he chap e om Cu ius’ book canno be di ec ly linked o Demodamas’
accoun . Ne e heless, he e is no eason o ejec i s de ails. Cu ius’ hand can be pe cei ed
in his own alue judgemen o he episode,37 and he somewha uns eady beha iou o bo h
Alexande and he Milesian soldie s, which could sugges asligh ly di e en ea lie e sion
ewo ked by Cu ius o i his na a i e pu poses.38 In consequence, gi en ha he p esence
o soldie s o Mile us is no unlikely, he gene al de ails o Cu ius’ e sion can be p ese ed.
ALEXANDER, MILETUS, AND DEMODAMAS
Demodamas’ e sion mus ha e been in luenced by his Milesian backg ound. The e o e, local
pe cep ions abou he B anchidae and Alexande mus ha e played akey ole in he shaping
o he episode by Demodamas. The p e ious passages, some likely e lec ing alocal sou ce,
make clea ha he B anchidae we e ega ded as ai o s and sac ilegious. Milesian hough s
on Alexande seem o be mo e complex, and hey we e in luenced by he king’sconques o
he ci y and i s immedia e e ec s.
Alexande did no easily seize Mile us, al hough i s go e no , Hegesis a us, ini ially sen
amessage o Alexande p omising o su ende i . Ne e heless, a e lea ning abou he
a i al o he Pe sian lee , Hegesis a us changed his mind and decided o esis . Alexande
besieged he ci y, bu his a acks we e epelled by i s de ende s, ime a e ime.
39
The ci y was
p obably in he hands o as ong p o -Pe sian oliga chy, and i s inhabi an s ac i ely collabo-
hey ac ually held his pos – indeed, i i eally exis ed– and, e en i so, a eplacemen o cou se
does no necessa ily imply Demodamas’ dea h. Pa ocles himsel , a e his hypo he ical posi ion
in Bac ia, is a es ed heading an expedi ion agains He acleia and he By hinians (FG His 434F
1.9.1–3). The e o e, Demodamas could ha e been ali e and kicking du ing An iochus’ eign oo.
35 One o he mos ecen p oposals o asigni ican ly la e da e has been he one p o oked by he
papy us POxy lxxi. 4808, which seems o imply ha Clei a chus was P olemy i ’s u o . See he
a gumen s agains i in P andi 2012; Landucci Ga inoni– P andi 2013; Lane Fox 2015, 165–166.
36 See Rapin 2017, 51–52, who comes o simila conclusions. Ou case shows some a ini ies wi h ha o
Pa ocles, ano he au ho o he Seleucid sphe e, who was in cha ge o an expedi ion in he Caspian
Sea (see no e 34). Ta n (1948, 16–19) conside ed ha Pa ocles’ wo k was used by Clei a chus, and
he u ned i in o one o his main a gumen s o assign alow da e o his book. Ne e heless, his
a gumen has been discussed and e u ed by di e en schola s: B own 1950, 138–142; Pea son
1960, 227–228; P andi 2012, 19.
37 In luenced by his Roman p ejudices, which we e comple ely di e en om G eek concep ions
abou he edi a y guil and punishmen ; see Mendoza 2019, 68 n. 263, 179–180.
38 Pa ke (1985b, 66, 68) pos ula es ha his p e ious e sion could show he Milesians unanimously
o ing o execu ion o ha hey in luenced he king o annihila e o he B anchidae. See also
Nawo ka 2010, 157.
39 Lanice’ssons, o ins ance, died du ing hese a acks: Cu ius iii, 2.8; A ian An. i , 9.4. In addi ion,
apossible Milesian embassy o he A henians asking o aid is a es ed: Gellius xi, 9.
73MARC MENDOZA
ády on bo h in he Hellenis ic emple and in i s p edecesso s om he A chaic pe iod. These
woods played akey ole in he ounda ion my hs o he sanc ua y i sel and he eponymous
B anchus, as well as in he i uals su ounding he o acula consul a ion (Fon en ose 1988,
30–31, 40, 107). The e o e, i could se e as u he e idence ha he B anchidae ied o ec-
ea e Didyma in hei new own, wi h all he de ails included. The g o e and he bay ees–
o ano he local plan as asubs i u e– would ha e kep he same ole played in he o iginal
sh ine. Ce ainly, he e is no hing o con i m ha i was dedica ed o Apollo Didymeus, bu
he B anchidae ha dly could ha e consec a ed i o anyone else.65 The o es , in consequence,
would ha e been p obably dedica ed o Apollo Didymeus.
This aspec (i.e., acing anew Didyma) migh explain he doub s o he Milesians abou how
o p oceed wi h he B anchidae, i s own, and he sanc ua y, as hey isked o ending hei
na ional god. Howe e , o Alexande , i was possibly ano he eason o des oying wha he
ega ded as an abomina ion. On he o he hand, i could also allude o wha happened acen u y
and ahal ea lie : i is e y likely ha he o iginal sac ed g o es we e also bu n down by he
i e ha des oyed Didyma. The e o e, des oying he new ones would a enge ha e en , in
he same way ha he descendan s paid o he c imes o he eache ous p ies s. Cu ius’ ex
speci ies ha he e we e o he g o es in he illage, in addi ion o he sac ed ones: ‘Nemo a
quoque e lucos sac os’ (Cu ius ii, 5.34). This p ecise e minological dis inc ion can only mean
ha he e was knowledge abou he holy na u e o hose o es s and, he e o e, hey we e no
colla e al ic ims, bu we e sys ema ically des oyed.66
Howe e , i would no ha e been exac ly anew Didyma. In he Ionian sanc ua y, he in e-
io o es p ese ed adi ec memo y o he mee ing be ween B anchus and Apollo. The bay
lau els he e we e supposed o come om he o iginal ee plan ed by he god himsel . I s use
as boughs o w ea hs by he p ophe s would be asymbol o he con inuing o acula connec ion.
The ou side g o e ep esen ed he o igins o he sh ine, e e ing o aGolden Age when hu-
mans and gods we e close (Callimachus Ae . F 229 P ei e ; Pa ke 1985a, 5; G a 1993, 26–27).
The Sogdian sh ine lacked hose links and could no claim any ecognised holiness. No ac ual
god was esiding he e. Mo eo e , i was c ea ed by sac ilegious men and, in consequence,
behind he appa en sac edness, bo h o es and sanc ua y we e impious and abho en o he
gods. Ac ually, he cons uc ion o he sanc ua y could ha e e en wo sened he accusa ions
o sac ilege. Familia pu i y was especially impo an o ca ying ou eligious du ies (Pla o
Leg. i, 759c), bu con ic ed c iminals we e also banned om en e ing emples o a oid hei
pollu ion, and in ingemen was punished wi h dea h (Demos henes xx, 158; Pla o Leg. ix, 868b,
871a; Pa ke 1983, 145–149; Chanio is 1996, 72–75; Naiden 2006, 134–135). The e o e, in u n,
des oying his o es migh no be sac ilegious pe se. Finally, he ounda ion o he al a s o
Apollo Didymeus by Demodamas, in away, could ha e es o ed he p ope cul o his god in
he egion, which had been wis ed by he wicked cul o he exiled B anchidae.
65 The e is ano he example in Bac ia -Sogdiana: an allusion o ag o e o Zeus in adedica ion ound
in Kulyab, p obably o iginally coming om Yakh -su alley o lowe Qizil -su i e . I is adedica ion
o ace ain Heliodo us o Hes ia o honou he G aeco -Bac ian king Eu hydemus Iand his son
Deme ius. See Be na d– Pinaul – Rougemon 2004, 333–356. Zeus was also wo shipped a
Didyma, and sac ed g o es could be de o ed o di e en dei ies a he same ime. Howe e , he e
is no indica ion o o es s consec a ed o Zeus in Didyma. See Fon en ose 1988, 135–144.
66 Nemus and lucus we e, ob iously, wo wo ds wi h e y simila meanings. P ecisely, he main di -
e ence was he sac ed na u e o he second e m. On hese wo ds and hei ancien and mode n
concep ions, see Scheid 1993. These La in e ms co espond o he G eek ones ὕλη and ἄλσος– o
be ound in Cu ius’ G eek sou ce– espec i ely; see Mon epaone 1993, 70.
74 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
The de ail o he sac ed o es is qui e p ecise, and i especially appealed o Mile us. In
u n, i would no be s ic ly necessa y o anyone ying o in en as o y only o jus i y he
new sys em a he eopened Didymaon. The e o e, his sugges s ha i was ei he a i s -hand
accoun o asupe luous addi ion o unde line he dange he B anchidae would ha e en ailed
( o he es o ed Ionian sanc ua y, o cou se). In his la e case, some Milesian eshaping could
be sugges ed. I he e ac ually we e Milesian soldie s among Alexande ’s anks, some aspec s
could ha e no been bla an ly aked, gi en he exis ence o i s -hand wi nesses. Ne e heless,
con e ing a‘no mal’ o es in o asac ed g o e would ha e no been ag ea challenge.
As s a ed abo e, eason and sac ilege we e capi al c imes, and hey we e easonable mo-
i es o aG eek o ha sh e alia ion. Loa hing o he B anchidae’sdegene a ion/ba ba isa ion
in oduces in Cu ius’ accoun ex a jus i ica ion abou why hey el p omp ed o wipe hem
ou . I is cu ious o see how e y simila de ails we e conside ed di e en ly depending on he
sou ces’ biases. He e, i is wo h aking alook a Philos a us’ accoun o Apollonius’ mee ing
wi h he E e ians depo ed o Cissia (VA i, 23–24).67 In he ci y hey buil , he e was an ago a,
G eek -s yle emples, and ombs ones wi h odd G eek le e s, some o hem e en wi h elegies
w i en on hem o depic ions o ships.
68
The image is no a om wha hey migh ha e ound
in he B anchidae se lemen , bu he eac ion o i was comple ely di e en .
The unde s anding ecep ion was no jus because o Apollonius/Philos a us’ na u e. In
he same way, du ing Alexande ’sconques , he Macedonian a my an in o o he displaced
G eek popula ions and, e en hough some o hem had al eady ‘bas a dised’ hei language
and cus oms, i did no a ouse any i ep essible a e sion ha ‘p omp ed’ he soldie s and he
king o annihila e hem.
69
This con as is easily explained by he di e en ci cums ances ha
had caused he espec i e displacemen s. The E e ians we e ma y s, and hey paid o hei
‘he oic’ esis ance o he Pe sians, as he Milesians and he Boeo ians also had o (He odo us
i, 94.2, 101.3, 107.2, 119; Pla o Leg. iii, 698c–d; Menex. 240a–b).70 The e o e, hey we e innocen
ic ims, so hei main enance o G eek cus oms– e en in as ange way– was p aisewo hy.71
On he o he hand, he B anchidae we e sac ilegious ai o s, so hei ba ba isa ion gene a ed
epulsion (Mendoza 2020, 150).
72
In a away Sogdiana, hei pas c imes we e enough o lead
o hei own massac e. The ob ious double s anda ds sugges ha he mo i o he ‘bas a dised’
67 This la e sou ce equi es some cau ion abou he eliabili y and exac i ude o i s con en . Howe e ,
in his case, wha eally ma e s is he a i ude owa ds he long -gone depo ees. On he peculia i ies
o his sou ce, see G osso 1958, 357–368; Penella 1974.
68 They also e ec ed monumen s o some Pe sian kings– Da ius I, Xe xes, and A axe xes II (?).
69 Diodo us (x ii, 110.4–5; c . xix, 19.2) s a es ha he a my s ayed o some days a Celones by he
Zag os, whe e ag oup o Boeo ians li ed. They we e bilingual and had been assimila ed by he
na i es, bu hey s ill p ese ed some o hei ances al cus oms. On his people, see Goukowsky
1976, 268–269; Mendoza 2016, 73; Mendoza 2020, 150, n. 34. When Alexande a i ed a Pe sepo-
lis, G eek sla es– many o hem wi h mu ila ions– swa med he king. He g an ed hem lands in
Asia, eeling so y o hei pi eous si ua ion: Cu ius , 5.5–6, 9; Diodo us Siculus x ii, 69.2–4, 6–8.
Finally, igh ing on he Pe sian side, he e we e he Go uae (see no e 72), said o be Euboeans who,
like he B anchidae, ook up exile when he Pe sians wi hd ew om G eece: Cu ius i , 12.11. See
Mendoza 2020, 150, n. 33.
70 The Milesians we e depo ed o Ampe, by he Pe sian Gul : He odo us i, 19.3–20. The G eek depo -
ees became a opos as clea ly shown in apassage om Xenophon, e oking he coun less coun ymen
mo ed due o he G ea King’swill (Xenophon Mem. i , 2.33).
71 In he case o he G eek sla es o Pe sepolis, he accoun s emphasize hei pi i ul image and ci -
cums ances, a e ha ing su e ed g ea ly om hei mean Pe sian o e lo ds.
72 In he same way, he eache ous Go uae had also degene a ed, and hei cus oms had died ou
(Cu ius i , 12.11: Pos hos iban Go uae, gen is quidem Euboicae, Medos quondam secu i, sed iam de‑
75MARC MENDOZA
na u e o he B anchidae was o e emphasised o ili y hem e en mo e. I is clea ha , had
hey un in o he o he Milesians depo ed o Ampe a e he Ionian e ol , hey would no
ha e been slaugh e ed, no ma e how ‘ba ba ian’ hey had become. The e o e, i was a u he
s ep o elimina e any ace o Hellenici y, and o any po en ial compassion oo. Ne e heless,
i is impossible o assess i his ul ima e jus i ica ion o hei massac e can be aced back o
Callis henes o any o he i s -gene a ion Alexande his o ian, o o Demodamas and/o he
Milesian adi ion.
Wha was he eal ole o he Milesians in he a my in his episode? Alexande ’schoice o
delega e ce ain decisions is no excep ional, and he e a e clea pa allels in he cases o Thebes
and Bessus. In bo h episodes, he did no di ec ly de e mine hei des iny, bu hose decisions
we e o icially made, espec i ely, by he League o Co in h (A ian An. i, 9.9; Diodo us Siculus
x ii, 14; Plu a ch Alex., 11.11; Jus in iii, 3.8–10) and wo I anian assemblies– one o Bac ians,
he o he o Medes and Pe sians.73 In bo h cases, Alexande did no in e ene in he decision-
-making, bu i is clea ha he had le some hin s abou wha would ha e pleased him. In
hose wo ins ances, he e dic s i ed Alexande ’swill, so he did no ha e o meddle in hem,
bu i is ob ious ha he would had done i necessa y. In ou episode, asimila pa e n can be
obse ed, bu wi h an impo an di e ence: he Milesians– o some o hem– we e no lean-
ing owa ds wha Alexande had p e e ed. The king, he e o e, se led on e aking he eins
o he si ua ion and did wha was bes in his opinion.74 This decision, as s a ed abo e, would
no ha e been p omp ed by Milesian in e es s, bu by his own agenda as Panhellenic a enge .
Wha did he Milesians– ei he in he a my o in he ci y– eel abou he ou come o he
s o y? Did hey eel elie ed o no ha ing di ec esponsibili y? O did hey eel ou aged
a e ha ing been igno ed by Alexande ? The dispa i y o opinions among hose in he a my
p obably occu ed in Mile us i sel oo. Despi e hei eason, i is likely ha he B anchidae
kep some au a o holiness in he public opinion, being he descendan s o B anchus– and,
in consequence, o he god himsel acco ding o he ea lies my hs (see abo e). The sac ed
o es – and he sanc ua y?– hey ound he e s eng hened his pe cep ion in many o hem,
who migh ha e hough abou wiping he sla e clean.75 Con enien ly, he Macedonian king
discha ged hem o any liabili y and he e o e spa ed he soldie s om any guil ega ding
he inal upsho o he a ai when hey came back o hei home own, easing in e nal ic-
ions a e wa ds. As i has been poin ed ou , all o he abo e does no imply ha he es o ed
Milesian democ acy in en ed he s o y o ha i s in e es s in luenced ei he Alexande o
he Milesians in he a my. The a emp by he E angellidae o seize he sanc ua y’sowne -
ship shows ha news abou he ex inc ion o he B anchidae p omp ed di e en eac ions
in Mile us, beyond he con ol o , and independen om, he new au ho i ies (see no e 59).
The e o e, he Milesian ini ial ecep ion o wha happened in a away Sogdiana was di e se
and no unanimous. Howe e , hose who backed a o a o y, ci ic p ies ly boa d pulled i o
gene es e pa ii mo is igna i). Ne e heless, he e is no indica ion ha hey we e slain beyond he
ba le ield.
73 Alexande e en le he ole o execu ione o Oxa h es and o he membe s o Da ius’ amily. The
e idence o he ‘legal p oceedings’ is ound in A ian An. iii, 30.3–5, i , 7.3; Cu ius ii, 5.39–43, 10.10;
Me z Epi ome 6, 14. See also Diodo us Siculus x ii, 83.7–9; Plu a ch Alex. 43.6; Jus in xii, 5.10–11. See
Mendoza 2023, 48–50. On he na u e o hese assemblies, see B ian 1984, 85–86; B ian 1994,
286–291; Boswo h 1995, 43.
74 Cu ius’ exp ession ( ii, 5.31) is e y anspa en : […] quid op imum ac u esse , os endi .
75 This is no illogical, despi e hei eason. A e all, he G eeks did no s op consul ing Delphi despi e
i s p o -Pe sian s ance du ing he Ionian Re ol and he G eco -Pe sian Wa s. See Pa ke– Wo mell
1956/I, 141–179.
76 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
in he end, and as a esul , hei in e p e a ion became he ‘o icial’ one. Pe haps i was a ha
momen ha he accusa ions agains he B anchidae we e mo e legally and o mally de ined.
Callis henes’ ague wo ding con as s wi h he mo e p ecise e minology o la e accoun s,
and i has been sugges ed ha he la e de i e om alocal adi ion. I is likely ha i was
apos hoc e dic a he han a ial in absen ia.
All he abo e sugges s ace ain adap a ion o he accoun – o , a leas , he addi ion o
some signi ican de ails– om alocal Milesian s andpoin . Wha did his possible ewo king
mean? Was i o p aise o o pu down Alexande and/o he Milesians in he a my? I Demo-
damas – o any o he Milesian au ho – had wan ed o p esen he slaugh e o he B anchidae
posi i ely, his episode would ha e been employed o highligh Alexande ’sclemency owa ds
he Milesians, as ha ing spa ed hem om ensla emen and dea h. Howe e , i seems ha is
no he case he e.
Al hough Alexande played ac ucial ole in he a ai and o he new au ho i ies, i does
no imply ha he was e e ed o i . As has been al eady poin ed ou , no display o special
g a i ude owa ds he Macedonian king is a es ed a e 331 (see no e 55).76 The e o e, his pa
migh be es ic ed o his snub o he Milesians by he public adi ion o Mile us. In conse-
quence, Alexande was neu ally po ayed in he bes -case scena io. I he Milesian adi ion
had aimed o anega i e ep esen a ion, i would ha e been use ul o exempli y he conque -
o ’s y anny, imposing his own will o e ha o he Milesians (i.e., o ced pa icipan s o his
expedi ion a e he ha sh e ms imposed ollowing he ci y’scap u e) and c uelly massac ing
he B anchidae’sdescendan s – a a e a oided by Mile us i sel jus by Alexande ’swhim.
The e is some e idence ha migh sugges ha hey d ew pa allels be ween wha happened
in Sogdiana and in Ionia, espec i ely.
Some eshaping can also be posi ed a e he a es ed simila i ies be ween Cu ius’ e sion
o he B anchidae massac e and Mile us’ su ende , especially in he p esence o supplian s.
The desc ibed scenes a e analogous and in e se a he same ime. In Mile us, despi e ini ial
esis ance, Alexande spa ed he ci izens. On he o he hand, in he B anchidae illage, despi e
he wa m ecep ion, he Macedonian king ul ima ely punished i s inhabi an s wi h ex eme
se e i y. Howe e , as no ed, Alexande ’sseizu e o Mile us was no ha bloodless: many ci i-
zens died, and he ci y migh ha e been loo ed (see no e 41), jus like he B anchidae illage. The
assaul s on bo h owns a e simila , wi h Macedonians oops enci cling hem and bu s ing in
om all di ec ions. Bo h he Milesians and he B anchidae decided o supplica e o he king,77
eeling o e whelmed by he ubiqui ous Macedonian soldie s. Un o una ely, he o e lap o
lacunae does no allow us o d aw good compa isons be ween au ho s. In he case o Mile us,
Diodo us’ accoun has been p ese ed bu no Cu ius’; in con as , o he B anchidae episode,
is he accoun o Cu ius is ex an a he han Diodo us’. The e o e, apa allel exis s, bu i is
no possible o assess i i is coinciden al o adelibe a e con aposi ion, whe he by Cu ius,
Diodo us, o hei (common?) sou ces. Ne e heless, i is likely ha , whe he on pu pose o
no , he assaul on he B anchidae own e oked simila bad memo ies o he Milesians.
The ques ion o Demodamas’ opinion abou Alexande has been le in he ai hus a . I
is ha d o assess, bu he e is amino de ail ha could shed ligh on his. As s a ed abo e, De-
modamas se up al a s o Apollo Didymeus in Sogdiana. He a i ed a he i e Jaxa es, and
added his name o ap es igious succession o indi iduals who eached he edge o he wo ld
and e ec ed al a s: He acles, Fa he Libe (Dionysus), Semi amis, Cy us, and Alexande (Pliny
76 The las concilia o y app oach was he embassy sen o Memphis.
77 No e he ypical de ail o he oli e boughs, ound bo h in Diodo us’ chap e o Mile us’ all and
Cu ius’ accoun o he B anchidae massac e.
77MARC MENDOZA
NH i, 16(18).49; Solinus 49.5; Ma ianus Capella i, 692).78 In ac , Pliny w i es ha Demoda-
mas no only eached he i e , bu ha he c ossed i and se his al a s on he o he side o i
( anscendi eum amnem Demodamas… a asque apollini didymaeo s a ui ).79 The e o e, he did no
eally es o e hem o se new ones nex o he o me : he es ablished b and -new monumen s.
Ace ain An iochia in Scy hia has been sugges ed o be Demodamas’ ounda ion– i i was no
me ely he e ounda ion o Alexand ia Escha e.80 Al a s o columns we e buil as bounda y
ma ke s and, in consequence, i he se hem beyond he i e Jaxa es, he was making aclaim
o e ha e i o y (S abo iii, 5.5)– so i migh imply ha An iochia in Scy hia was no jus
a e ounda ion, bu ase lemen on he o he sho e.81 The e o e, Demodamas’ deed no only
emula ed his o e unne s bu su passed hem. Th ough i , Demodamas b ough Apollo and
he Milesians u he han any o he (ci ilized) human had been be o e. The cons uc ion o
hose eas e nmos al a s exal ed Mile us’ na ional god, Apollo Didymeus, om alocal o an
ecumenical scope (Nawo ka 2008, 147–148; Bea zo 2017, 147, 150–152). This ac o eshadowed,
o was one o he i s signs o , his ele a ion as he Seleucid pa on god, depending on when
his linkage is supposed o ha e been es ablished.82 Mo eo e , Apollo’s iumph o e He acles
and Dionysus could be an analogy o he Seleucid migh o e hei dynas ic i als: Macedonia–
ei he A gead o An igonid, because bo h claimed He aclid ances y– and he P olemies, who
associa ed hemsel es bo h wi h He acles and Dionysus. Ne e heless, his la e compa ison
depends on when his di ine ances y was es ablished, and mos o he ex an e idence is
78 Ma ianus Capella did no include Semi amis and Cy us in his lis ; see no e 2. Alexande his o ians
w o e abou akind o i y -co e ed bounda y ma ke s ha he Macedonians a ibu ed o Dionysus
(Cu ius iii, 10.5, ii, 9.15; Me z Epi ome 12; c . Eu ipides Bac. 15), bu wi h no men ion o any o he
o he people ound in he accoun s abou Demodamas. The e is no wo d ei he on whe he Alex-
ande es o ed hem o se new al a s he e, jus like Pliny and O osius (i, 2.5) imply. They could
ha e been ku gans, see Boswo h 1995, 31. S abo (iii, 5.5) places some o he al a s in India.
79 Alexande did ac ually c oss he i e , bu i was jus aquick aid (Cu ius ii, 9.1–16; A ian An.
i , 4.3–9; Plu a ch Alex. 45.5; Mo . 341c; Me z Epi ome 12). He pene a ed be ween 80 and 150 s adia
be o e u ning back, acco ding o he sou ces. Cu ius ( ii, 9.15) and he Me z Epi ome explici ly s a e
ha he Macedonian a my eached and wen beyond Dionysus’ bounda ies, al hough hey seem
o place hem beyond he i e . The ci y o Alexand ia Escha e was ( e) ounded by he i e , bu
on he sou h bank, and i o mally was he limi o Alexande ’s e i o y in he no heas (Cu ius
ii, 6.25–27; A ian An. i , 4.1; Jus in xii, 5.12). See F ase 1996, 151–153; Cohen 2013, 252–255. Pliny
clea ly places he al a s by Alexand ia Escha e. Appian (Sy . 57) included he ci y as one o Seleucus’
ounda ions. Pe haps i was e ounded in he same expedi ion in which Demodamas e ec ed he
al a s. See Boswo h 1995, 17; con a F ase 1996, 38, 153, n. 94.
80 In he Tabula Peu inge iana (xi, 5), wo al a s can be seen below Alexand ia Escha e and An iochia
in Scy hia. See Ta n 1940, 91–93; F ase 1996, 33; F ase 2009, 332; Cohen 2013, 250–252.
81 I is wo h no ing ha Pliny (NH i, 62(21)) is he only one o a es ha Alexande e ec ed his al a s
a he opposi e sho e o he i e Hyphasis in India whe e his expedi ion ended. The o he sou ces
did no p ese e such ac ossing: A ian An. , 29.1–2; Cu ius ix, 3.19; Jus in xii, 8.16; Diodo us
Siculus x ii, 95.1–2; S abo iii, 5.5; Plu a ch Alex. 62.7–8; Me z Epi ome 69; Philos a us VA ii, 43. See
Hamil on 1969; Boswo h 1995, 356.
82 This has been aho opic in Seleucid his o iog aphy. Those sugges ing an ea ly da e ha e o en
b ough up apassage om Diodo us (xix, 90.3–4), in which Seleucus e ealed aDidymean p oph-
ecy ela ed o his igh o ule o e Asia in 312; see also Appian Sy . 56; Libanius O . xi, 99. Some
ha e e en sugges ed ha Demodamas was behind his episode, and he migh be media ed be ween
Seleucus and his home own sanc ua y. See Bea zo 1984; Bea zo 2017, 149–150; Landucci Ga -
inoni 2013, 34–36, 42. Con a Haussoulie 1902, 33–34; Mus i 1966, 148–149; Pa ke 1985a, 50–51;
Fon en ose 1988, 215–217; G ainge 1990, 164; Nawo ka 2008, 135, 143–145; P imo 2009, 186.
78 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
la e.83 Ne e heless, He acles and Dionysus we e wo gods closely ela ed o Alexande al eady
du ing his li e ime o , a leas , in he Diadochi pe iod.84 Thus, once mo e, i could be ano he
spi e ul e e ence o he Macedonian king and his will o emula e hese gods’ iumphs in he
Eas . In any case, Demodamas’ achie emen would ha e exci ed Milesian p ide and boos ed
Didyma’s epu a ion. In addi ion, i may ha e been el like ge ing e en wi h Alexande o
his p e ious sligh s: his ea came o no hing hanks o Demodamas’ g ea es iumph. I so,
Demodamas’ wo k could ha e also included ac i ical bias owa ds Alexande in line wi h wha
seemed o be he main adi ion in ea ly Hellenis ic Mile us.
CONCLUSIONS
Alexande ’sconques o Mile us b ough ha d imes o he ci y, somehow wo sened by he
king’sdis us owa d i s ci izens. E en hough he new au ho i ies ied o s eng hen he
ela ionship, i was in ain. Howe e , Didyma was eopened and, e en i he p ophecy sen
o Alexande p o ed useless, he king’sha shness was o do hem an unexpec ed a ou . The
annihila ion o he long -los B anchidae– and he des uc ion o hei copyca sh ine in
Sogdiana– clea ed he way o acomple e change o managemen , despi e a emp s by some
o seize i o hei amily, and he ope a ion o he eopened o acula cen e. The ole o he
Milesians in he inciden emains doub ul, bu con enien ly, he o icial e sion spa ed hem
o any di ec esponsibili y, hus a oiding u he un es in hei home own. This ambiguous
ole played by Alexande ound i s way in o he local adi ion and, in u n, o i s w i e s. Some
de ails o he ex an na a i es clea ly sugges aMilesian o igin, and e en ace ain ewo k-
ing o some aspec s o i hem be e in he accep ed accoun . Among he local au ho s ha
could ha e in luenced la e w i e s, Demodamas, who had close ela ions bo h wi h Didyma
and he Seleucids, clea ly s ands ou . I is e y likely ha he deal wi h he episode in his
wo ks, especially when desc ibing his deeds in Cen al Asia. Al hough he e is no conclusi e
e idence o de e mine wi hou doub ha Demodamas’ na a i e is e lec ed in he ex an
e sions, he possibili y canno be ejec ed ou igh , and i e en appea s as ap obable op ion.
Howe e , his main a ou o Mile us and his belo ed sanc ua y was he se ing o he al a s
o Apollo Didymeus a he edge o he oikoumene. Wi h his ac ion, Demodamas su passed
any o he G eek mo al man– including Alexande – and bound oge he he wo ex emes
o Asia unde he aegis o his na ional pa on god. Fa away Sogdiana, he e o e, became an
83 An igonid connec ion wi h He acles was, in u n, aconsequence o hei alleged ela ionship wi h
he A geads. Di ec a es a ion is la e (Polybius , 10.10) bu He acles appea ed on ea ly An igonid
coins. An igonus Monop halmus and Deme ius Polio ce es issued coins wi h he he o’shead,
bu he ype was widesp ead in ha pe iod, ha ing been al eady used by Alexande . P olemaic
associa ion wi h He acles seems o be ea ly, because P olemy Iwould ha e claimed o be Philip
II’sillegi ima e son (Pausanias i, 6.2; Cu ius ix, 8.22; Suda s. . Λάγος). Howe e , he e was an
al e na i e genealogy ha claimed descen om bo h He acles and Dionysus h ough A sinoe,
P olemy’smo he (Sa y us FG His 631F 1 apud Theophilus Ad Au ol. ii, 7; Theoc i us x ii, 26). See
also OGIS 54. P olemaic ondness o Dionysus is clea ly p o ed by Philadelphus’ g ea p ocession
in he ea ly 270s (Callixenus o Rhodes FG His 627F 2 apud A henaeus , 197c–203e), which sugges s
ap e ious ela ion. So e issued coins wi h Alexande wea ing Dionysian elemen s such as he
elephan scalp, an iden i ica ion also ound in his son’spompé.
84 In he same way, Alexande is ound emula ing o su passing Cy us and Semi amis elsewhe e
du ing his campaign (e.g., his e u n ip h ough Ged osia). S abo e en called him φιλόκυρος
(‘ ond o Cy us’).
79MARC MENDOZA
unexpec ed p o agonis o ea ly Hellenis ic Mile us. The e en s ha happened he e p omp ed
ase ies o deep changes ha a e c ucial o unde s anding Milesian iden i y -building in ha
pe iod. Apollo Didymeus wen wice o Sogdiana and back.
SOURCES
Aelian = Claudii Aeliani Epis ulae e F agmen a. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o : D. Domingo -Fo as é. S u -
ga 1994.
Appian Sy . = Appian o Alexand ia: The Sy ian Book. T ansl. B. McGing. In: Appian: Roman His o y III. Loeb
Classical Lib a y 4. Camb idge, Mass. 2019.
A is ophanes Plu . = A is ophanes o A hens: Weal h. T ansl. J. Hende son. In: A is ophanes. F ogs. Assembly‑
women. Weal h. Loeb Classical Lib a y 180. Camb idge, Mass. 2002.
A ian An. = A ian o Nicomedia: Anabasis o Alexande I–II. T ansl. P.A. B un . Loeb Classical Lib a y 236,
269. Camb idge, Mass. 1976–1983.
A henaeus = A henaeus o Nauc a is: The Lea ned Banque e s II, VI, VIII. T ansl. S.D. Olson. Loeb Classical
Lib a y 208, 327, 512. Camb idge, Mass. 2007, 2010, 2012.
Callimachus Ae . = Callimachus o Cy ene: Ae ia. In: Callimachus I: F agmen a. Cla endon P ess. Edi o : R.
P ei e . Ox o d 1949.
Cu ius = Quin us Cu ius Ru us: His o y o Alexande I–II. T ansl. J.C. Rol e. Loeb Classical Lib a y 368, 369.
Camb idge, Mass. 1946.
Demos henes = Demos henes: O a ionsI. O a ions 1–17 and 20. T ansl. J.H. Vince. Loeb Classical Lib a y 238.
Camb idge, Mass. 1930.
Didyma = McCabe, D.F. 1985: Didyma Insc ip ions. Tex s and Lis . P ince on.
Diodo us Siculus = Diodo us o Sicily: Lib a y o His o y VIII, X. T ansl. C.B. Welles– R.M. Gee . Loeb Classical
Lib a y 390, 422. Camb idge, Mass. 1959, 1963.
Diogenes Lae ius = Diogenes Lae ius. Li es o Eminen Philosophe s I–II. T ansl. R.D. Hicks. Loeb Classical
Lib a y 184, 185. Camb idge, Mass. 1925.
E y h ai = D.F. McCabe 1986: E y h ai Insc ip ions. Tex s and Lis . P ince on.
Eu ipides Bac. = Eu ipides: Bacchae. T ansl. D. Ko acs. In: Eu ipides. Bacchae. Iphigenia a Aulis. Rhesus. Loeb
Classical Lib a y 495. Camb idge, Mass. 2003.
FG H = F. Jacoby ed. 1923–1958: F agmen a His o ico um G aeco um. Be lin– Leiden.
F on inus S a . = Sex us Iulius F on inus: S a agems. In: F on inus: S a agems. Aqueduc s o Rome. T ansl.
C.E. Benne . Loeb Classical Lib a y 174. Camb idge, Mass. 1925.
Gellius = Aulus Gellius: A ic Nigh sII. Books 6–13. T ansl. J.C. Rol e. Loeb Classical Lib a y 200. Camb idge,
Mass. 1927.
He odiani Technici Reliquiae = Aelius He odianus: He odiani Technici Reliquiae. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o :
A. Len z. Leipzig 1867–1870.
He odo us = He odo us o Halica nassus: The Pe sian Wa s I, III. T ansl. A.D. Godley. Loeb Classical Lib a y
117, 119. Camb idge, Mass. 1920, 1922.
I.E y h ai = Engelmann, H.– Me kelbach, R. eds. 1972–1973. Die Insch i en on E y h ai und Klazomenai, 2 ols.
Insch i en g iechische S äd e aus Kleinasien 1–2. Bonn.
IG II2 = J. Ki chne ed. 1927–1931: Insc ip iones G aecaeII. Insc ip iones A icae ae a is quae es in e Euclidis annum
e Augus i empo a, 2nd edi ion. Be lin.
Isc . di Cos = M. Seg e 1993: Isc izioni di Cos. Monog a ie della Scuola A cheologica di A ene e delle Missioni
I aliane in O ien e, 6. Rome.
80 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
Julius Vale ius = Iuli Vale i Alexand i Polemi: Res ges ae Alexand i Macedonis. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o :
B. Küble . Leipzig 1888.
Jus in = Ma cus Junianus Jus inus: Epi ome o he Philippic His o y o Pompeius T ogusI. Books 11–12, Alexande
he G ea . T ansl. J. Ya dley– W. Heckel. Ox o d 1997.
Lac an ius Di . Ins . = Lac an ius: Di ine Ins i u es. T ansl. A. Bowen– P.Ga nsey. T ansla ed Tex s o His-
o ians 40. Li e pool.
Libanius O . = Libanius o An ioch: O a ion in P aise o An ioch (O a ion XI). T ansl. G. Downey. In: P oceedings
o he Ame ican Philosophical Socie y 103, 652–686. 1959.
Libe de Mo e = Ince i auc o is Epi oma e um ges a um Alexand i Magni cum Lib o de mo e es amen oque
Alexand i. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o : P.H. Thomas. Leipzig 1966.
Lucian Alex. = Lucian o Samosa a: Alexande he False P ophe . T ansl. A.M. Ha mon. In: LucianIV. Anacha sis
o A hle ics. Menippus o The Descen in o Hades. On Fune als. AP o esso o Public Speaking. Alexande he
False P ophe . Essays in Po ai u e. Essays in Po ai u e De ended. The Goddesse o Su ye. Loeb Classical
Lib a y 162. Camb idge, Mass. 1925.
Ma ianus Capella = Ma ianus Capella: The Se en Libe al A sII. T ansl. W.H. S ahl– R. Johnson. Reco ds o
Ci iliza ion. Sou ces and S udies 84. New Yo k 1977.
Mela = Pomponius Mela: Desc ip ion o he Wo ld. T ansl. F.E. Rome . Ann A bo 1998.
Me z Epi ome = Ince i auc o is: Epi oma e um ges a um Alexand i Magni cum Lib o de mo e es amen oque
Alexand i. Biblio heca Teubne iana. Edi o : P.H. Thomas. Leipzig 1966.
Mile = G. Kawe au– A. Rehm eds. 1914: Das Delphinion in Mile . Mile I, 3. Be lin.
OGIS = Di enbe ge , W. 1903–1905: O ien is G aeci Insc ip iones Selec ae, 2 ols. Leipzig.
Pausanias = Pausanias: Desc ip ion o G eece I–IV. T ansl. W.H.S. Jones. Loeb Classical Lib a y 93, 188, 272, 297.
Camb idge, Mass. 1918–1935.
Philos a us VA = Philos a us o A hens: Li e o Apollonius o Tyana I: Books 1–4. T ansl. C.P.Jones. Loeb Clas-
sical Lib a y 16. Camb idge, Mass. 2005.
Pla o Menex. = Pla o: Menexenus. T ansl. R.G. Bu y. In: Pla o. Timaeus. C i ias. Clei ophon. Menexenus. Epis les.
Loeb Classical Lib a y 234. Camb idge, Mass. 1929.
Pla o Leg. = Pla o: Laws I–II. T ansl. R.G. Bu y. Loeb Classical Lib a y 187, 192. Camb idge, Mass. 1926.
Pliny NH = Pliny he Elde : Na u al His o y II, IX. T ansl. H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Lib a y 352, 394. Cam-
b idge, Mass. 1942, 1952.
Plu a ch Alex. = Plu a ch o Chae onea: Li e o Alexande . In: Plu a ch: Li esVII. Demos henes and Cice o. Al‑
exande and Caesa . T ansl. B. Pe in. Loeb Classical Lib a y 99. Camb idge, Mass. 1919.
Plu a ch Mo . = Plu a ch o Chae onea: Mo alia. III, IV, VII. T ansl. F.C. Babbi . Loeb Classical Lib a y 245.
Loeb Classical Lib a y 245, 305, 405. Camb idge, Mass. 1931, 1936, 1959.
Polyaenus = Polyaenus, S a agems. T ansl. P.K en z– E.L. Wheele . Chicago 1994.
Polybius = Polybius o Megalopolis: The His o iesIII. Books 5–8. T ansl. W.R. Pa on. Loeb Classical Lib a y 138.
Camb idge, Mass. 2011.
POxy = Be es o d, A.G.– Pa sons, P.J.– Pobjoy, M.P.eds. 2007: The Oxy hynchus Papy iLXXI. Egyp Explo a ion
Socie y, G aeco -Roman Memoi s 91. London.
Pseudo -Callis henes = Pseudo-Callis henes: The G eek Alexande Romance. T ansl. R. S oneman. London 1991.
RC = C.B. Welles 1934: Royal Co espondence in he Hellenis ic Pe iod. New Ha en.
SB = F. P iesigke ed. 1915: Sammelbuch g iechische U kunden aus Ägyp enI. S assbu g.
SEG = A.G. Woodhead ed. 1963: Supplemen um Epig aphicum G aecumXIX. Ams e dam.
Solinus = C. Iulii Solini: Collec anea e um memo abilium. F iede ici Nicolai. Edi o : Th. Mommsen. Be lin 1864.
S ephanus Byzan inus = S ephani Byzan ii E hnica I–II. T ansl. M. Bille beck– C. Zuble . Co pus Fon ium
His o iae Byzan inae 43. Be lin 2006–2010.
S abo = S abo: Geog aphy. II, III, V, VI, VIII. T ansl. H.L. Jones. Loeb Classical Lib a y 50, 182, 211, 223, 267.
Camb idge, Mass. 1923, 1924, 1928, 1929, 1932.
81MARC MENDOZA
Suda = Suda [online]. Accessed on No embe 12 h 2023 om URL: h ps://www.cs.uky.edu/~ aphael/sol/
sol -h ml/
Tabula Peu inge iana = K. Mille ed. 1887–1888: Tabula Peu inge iana [online]. Accessed on No embe 13 h
2023 om URL: h ps://www.hs -augsbu g.de/~ha sch/Ch onologia/Lspos 03/Tabula/ ab_pe00.h ml
Theoc i us = Theoc i us: Idylls. T ansl. Neil Hopkinson. In: Theoc i us. Moschus. Bion. Loeb Classical Lib a y
28. Camb idge, Mass. 2015.
Theophilus Ad Au ol. = Theophilus o An ioch: Ad Au olycus. T ansl. R.M. G an . Ox o d 1970.
Vale ius Maximus = Vale ius Maximus: Memo able Doings and SayingsI. Books 1–5. T ansl. D.R.S. Bailey. Loeb
Classical Lib a y 492. Camb idge, Mass. 2000.
Vi u ius = Ma cus Vi u ius Pollio: On A chi ec u eII. Books 6–10. T ansl. F. G ange . Loeb Classical Lib a y
280. Camb idge, Mass. 1934.
Xenophon Mem. = Xenophon o A hens: Memo abilia. T ansl. E.C. Ma chan – O.J. Todd. In Xenophon: Mem‑
o abilia. Oeconomicus. Symposium. Apology. Loeb Classical Lib a y 168. Camb idge, Mass. 2013.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
An ela -Be ná dez, B. 2012: Alejand o Magno, polio ce es. In: J. Vidal– B. An ela -Be ná dez (eds.): Fo i i‑
caciones y Gue a de Asedio en el Mundo An iguo. Za agoza, 77–134.
A kinson, J.E. 1980: Acommen a y on Q. Cu ius Ru us’ His o iae Alexand i Magni. Books 3 and 4. Ams e dam.
A kinson, J.E.– Ga giulo, T. 2000: Cu zio Ru o. S o ie di Alessand o Magno Vol 2. Lib i VI–X. Roma.
Badian, E. 1965: The da e o Cli a chus. P oceedings o he A ican Classical Associa ions 8, 5–11.
Badian, E. 1966: Alexande he G ea and he G eeks o Asia. In: Ancien Socie y and Ins i u ions. S udies
P esen ed o V. Eh enbe g. Ox o d, 37–69 = 2012: In: E. Badian (ed.): Collec ed pape s on Alexande he G ea .
New Yo k, 124–152.
Bea zo , C. 1984: Il san ua io di Apollo Didimeo e la spedizione di Seleuco IaBabilonia (312 a.C.). In: M. So di
(ed.): Isan ua i e la gue a nel mondo classico. Milano, 51–81.
Bea zo , C. 2017: Demodaman e di Mile o e l’iden i à ionica. E ga–Logoi 5, 143–154.
Be na d, P.1985: Les monnaies ho s éso s. Ques ions d’his oi e g éco ‑bac ienne. Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum 4. Pa is.
Be na d, P.– Pinaul , G.-J.– Rougemon , G. 2004: Deux nou elles insc ip ions g ecques de l’Asie Cen ale.
Jou nal des Sa an s 2, 227–356.
Bicke mann, E.J. 1934: Alexand e le G and e les illes d’Asie. Re ue des é udes g ecques 47, 346–374.
Bicke mann, E.J. 1938: Ins i u ions des Séleucides. Pa is.
Billows, R.A. 1990: An igonos he One ‑eyed and he c ea ion o he Hellenis ic s a e. Be keley.
Bo o, L. 1985: IRe ellenis ici e icen i eligiosi dell’Asia Mino e. Fi enze.
Boswo h, A.B. 1976: A ian and he Alexande Vulga e. In: E. Badian (ed.): Alexand e le G and. Image e
Réali é. Gene a, 1–46.
Boswo h, A.B. 1980: Ahis o ical commen a y on A ian’shis o y o Alexande . Vol. 1. Books I–III. Ox o d.
Boswo h, A.B. 1988: Conques and Empi e. The Reign o Alexande he G ea . Camb idge.
Boswo h, A.B. 1995: Ahis o ical commen a y on A ian’shis o y o Alexande . Vol. 2. Books IV–V. Ox o d.
B ian , P.1984: L’Asie cen ale e les oyaumes p oche ‑o ien aux du p emie millénai e (c. VIIIe–IVe siècles a an
no e è e). Pa is.
B ian , P.1994: Sou ces g éco -hellénis iques, ins i u ions pe ses e ins i u ions macédoniennes. Con inu-
i és, changemen s e b icolages. In: H. Sancisi -Wee denbu g– A. Kuh – M. Cool Roo (eds.): Achaemenid
His o y 8. Con inui y and Change. P oceedings o he Las Achaemenid His o y Wo kshop, Ann A bo ,
Michigan, Ap il 6–8, 1990. Leiden, 283–310.
B own, T.S. 1950: Cli a chus. Ame ican Jou nal o Philology 71, 134–155.
B own, T.S. 1978: A is odicus o Cyme and he B anchidae. Ame ican Jou nal o Philology 99, 64–78.
82 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
Chanio is, A. 1996: Con lic ing au ho i ies. Asylia be ween secula and di ine law in he Classical and
Hellenis ic poleis. Ke nos 9, 65–86.
Cohen, G.M. 2013: The Hellenis ic se lemen s in he Eas om A menia and Mesopo amia o Bac ia and India.
Be keley.
Debo d, P.1999: L’Asie Mineu e au IVe siècle (412–323 a.C.). Pou oi s e jeux poli iques. Pa is.
de Cazano e, O.– Scheid, J. eds. 1993: Les bois sac és. Ac es du colloque in e na ional o ganisé pa le Cen e
Jean Bé a d e l’École P a ique des Hau es É udes (Ve sec ion), Naples, 23–25 No emb e 1989. Napoli.
D eye , B. 2009: He oes, Cul s and Di ini y. In: W. Heckel– L. T i le (eds.): Alexande he G ea . ANew His o y.
Malden, 218–234.
Flowe ,M.A. 2000: Alexande he G ea and Panhellenism. In: A.B. Boswo h– E. Baynham (eds.): Alexande
he G ea in ac and ic ion. Ox o d, 96–135.
Flowe ,M.A. 2008: The see in ancien G eece. Be keley.
Fon ana, M.J. 1955: Il p oblema delle on i pe il XVII lib o di Diodo o Siculo. Kokalos 1, 155–190.
Fon en ose, J.E. 1988: Didyma. Apollo’sO acle, Cul , and Companions. Be keley.
F ase , P.M. 1996: Ci ies o Alexande he G ea . Ox o d.
F ase , P.M. 2009: G eek e hnic e minology. Ox o d.
Goukowsky, P.1976: Diodo e de Sicile. Biblio hèque his o ique. Li eXVII. Pa is.
G a , F. 1993: Bois sac és e o acles en Asie Mineu e. In: de Cazano e– Scheid eds. 1993, 23–29.
G ainge , J.D. 1990: Seleukos Nika o . Cons uc ing aHellenis ic kingdom. London.
G ainge , J.D. 2009: The ci ies o Pamphylia. Ox o d.
G osso, F. 1958: Gli E e iesi depo a i in Pe sia. Ri is a di Filologia e di Is uzione Classica 86, 350–375.
Hamil on, J.R.1961: Clei a chus and A is obulus. His o ia. Zei sch i ü Al e Geschich e 10, 448–458.
Hamil on, J.R.1969: Plu a ch, Alexande . Acommen a y. Ox o d.
Hammond, N.G.L. 1980: Alexande he G ea – King, Commande and S a esman. B is ol.
Hammond, N.G.L. 1983: Th ee his o ians o Alexande he G ea . The so ‑called Vulga e au ho s, Diodo us, Jus in,
and Cu ius. Camb idge.
Hammond, N.G.L. 1998: The B anchidae a Didyma and in Sogdiana. The Classical Qua e ly 48, 339–344.
Ha ison, C.M. 1982: Coins o he Pe sian Sa aps. PhD disse a ion, Uni e si y o Pennsyl ania. Philadelphia.
Haselbe ge , L. 1980: We kzeichnungen am Jünge en Didymeion -Vo be ich . Is anbule Mi eilungen 30,
191–215.
Haselbe ge , L. 1983: Be ich übe die A bei am Jünge en Apollo empel on Didyma -Zwischenbe ich .
Is anbule Mi eilungen 33, 90–123.
Haussoullie , B. 1900: Les Séleucides e le emple d’Apollon Didyméen. Re ue de Philologie, de Li é a u e
e d’His oi e Anciennes 24, 243–271.
Haussoullie , B. 1902: É udes su l’his oi e de Mile e du Didymeion. Pa is.
Hol , F.L. 1989: Alexande he G ea and Bac ia: he o ma ion o aG eek on ie in cen al Asia. Leiden.
Isage , S. 1998: The P ide o Halika nassos. Zei sch i ü Papy ologie und Epig aphik 123, 5–23.
Keb ic, R.B. 1977: In he shadow o Macedon: Du is o Samos. Wiesbaden.
Kholod, M.M. 2010: The ga isons o Alexande he G ea in he G eek ci ies o Asia Mino . Eos 97, 249–258.
Kosmin, P.J. 2014: The land o he elephan kings. Space, e i o y, and ideology in he Seleucid Empi e. Camb idge.
K ugliko a, I.T. 1974: Diľbe džin 1. Raskopki 1970–1972 gg. Mosk a.
Kubica, O. 2016: The massac e o he B anchidae. A eassessmen . The pos ‑mo em case in de ence o he
B anchidae. In: K. Nawo ka– A. Wojciechowska (eds.): Alexande he G ea and he Eas : His o y, A , T a‑
di ion. Wiesbaden, 143–150.
Kulesza, R.1994: Pe sian Depo a ions– G eeks in Pe sia. Eos 82, 221–250.
Landucci Ga inoni, F. 2013: Seleucus s. An igonus. As udy on he sou ces. In: V. Alonso T oncoso– E.
Anson (eds.): A e Alexande . The Time o he Diadochoi (323–281 BC). Ox o d, 30–42.