Preparation for school

The meaning of arrian, flavius in the collier's dictionary. Arrian flavius Arrian historian

Ancient historians paid great attention to the tactics of the Hellenistic era. Flavius Arrian's Tactics differs from similar works by Asklepiodotus and Elian in that the author has practical experience in the art of war. In his works on military history, Arrian relies not only on the works of previous writers, but also on the events in which he was directly involved. It is quite possible that when writing Tactics, Arrian used the lost work of the same name by Polybius. In Tactics, Arrian describes in sufficient detail the armament and classification of the combat arms, the formation and maneuvers of the phalanx. This book, otherwise called "Tactical Art", in addition to the tactics of the times of Hellenism, contains a treatise on the contemporary author of the Roman cavalry. Completely cite the work of Arrian, translated by S.M. Perevalov. does not allow the format of articles, therefore the text is significantly reduced. Fragments of the Tactics will certainly be interesting and useful to those wargamers and game designers who seriously study weapons and military affairs, not limited to the movement of soldiers' figures and dice rolls.

Flavius Arrian, Tactics

Both foot and horse formations and weapons are varied and varied. So, the armament of the infantry, if divided into the largest [varieties], is divided into three: hoplite, psils and peltasts. Hoplites, the most heavily armed [variety], have shells, shields - round (aspis), or oblong (dash), short swords (mahair) and spears (dorats) - like the Hellenes, or saris - like the Macedonians. Psils have all the [weapons] exactly the opposite of the hoplites, since they have no shell, shield, greaves or helmet, and use long-range weapons: arrows from a bow, darts, slings, stones [thrown] by hand. Peltasts are lighter armed than hoplites - after all, a pelt is smaller and lighter than a round shield, and darts (acontia) are shorter than spears and saris - but heavier than psils. Correctly and heavily armed hoplites are given a helmet, or felt hats - Laconian, or Arcadian, [two] knemids - like the ancient Hellenes, or, - like the Romans, one knemis for that leg that is put forward in battles, and the shells are scaly or woven from thin iron rings.

The armament of the cavalry is either armored (cataphract), or non-armored (afract). Cataphract [weaponry] - that which provides armor protection for both horses and horsemen, and the [horsemen] themselves - with scaly, linen or horny carapaces, as well as legguards, and horses - with ribs and foreheads; afractal [weaponry] is just the opposite. Among them, on the one hand, there are spear-bearers (doratophors) - either pike-bearers (contophores), or lonchophores, on the other - truckers (acrobolists), [of whom] there is only one species. Spearmen are those who, approaching the battle formations of the enemies, fight either with spears (dorats), or with pikes (contos), rushing into the attack, like the Alans and Savromats; acrobolists act with projectiles from afar, like Armenia and the Parthians from those who are not contophores. Of the [horsemen] of the first type, some wear [oblong] shields (dashes) and are called shield-bearers (thyrophores), others [do] without them and fight in the same way, but with spears (dorats) and contes, they are called spear-bearers themselves (doratophores) or contophores, among them there are also xystophores. Acrobolists could be called those who do not converge hand-to-hand, but shoot and throw at a distance. Of these, some use small spears (doration) for shelling, others use bows. [Acrobolists] who fire with small spears are called Tarentines, others are horse archers (hippotoxots). Among the Tarentines themselves, some carry on such a bombardment, by all means keeping [from the enemy] at a distance, or forming a circle when they jump — they are the real Tarentines; others first throw, and then engage in battle with opponents, either with one remaining spear, or using a long sword (spata), and they are called "light" (elaphrs). Among the Romans, some horsemen wear contes and attack in the manner of the Alan and Sauromats, while others have spear-lance (lonchs). A large and wide sword (spata) hangs from their shoulders, they wear wide and oblong shields (dashes), an iron helmet, a forged carapace and small leggings. Spears (lonhi) are worn for both purposes: both in order to throw them from a distance, when necessary, and in order to fight close, [holding them] in hand, and if it is necessary to come together [with the enemy] close hand-to-hand, then fight with swords (spats). Some also carry small axes with blades rounded on all sides.

Each equestrian or foot formation has its own composition, leaders, numbers and names so that [you can] quickly accept orders: this should now be discussed. The first and most important thing in the art of a commander is to take the [just] recruited and disorganized mass of people, place them in the proper formation and order: [that is] distribute among the suckers and group the suckers, establish a proportional and suitable number for battle for the entire army. Loch is the name of [a certain] number of people, from the leader and built behind him in depth down to the last, which is called "closing" (hurricane). Some set the number of the sucker at eight, some at ten, some [add] two to ten, and some at sixteen. We will take the greatest depth at sixteen [people]. This [number] will be commensurate with both the length of the formation and the depth of the phalanx, and also [suitable] for shooting bows or throwing over the [phalanx] from the side of the psils attached to it from behind. And if it is necessary to double the depth to thirty-two husbands, such a construction remains proportionate; and even if the front (metopon) stretches, [reducing the depth] to eight [husbands], the phalanx does not completely lose the depth [of construction]. But if you want to stretch [the phalanx] from eight to four, then it will lose depth. So, a lohag, since from him, as from the first, a goof begins to build, you need to choose the strongest: he is also called the "forward" (protostat) and leader (hegemon). The one behind the lohag is called the “backward” (epistatus), the one after him is the “forward” (protostat), the one behind him is [again] the epistatus, so that the entire row of the sucker is made up of protostats and epistats, standing alternately. It is necessary that not only the lohag be the strongest of the sucker, but also the hurricane is chosen not much weaker: after all, many and no less important combat missions are entrusted to him. So, let the sucker be a row of epistats and protostats, lined up between the sucker and the hurricane.

The entire aggregate structure of the army is called the phalanx; its length could initially be considered a line of lohags, which some call the front (metopon), but there are those who [call] the face (prosopon) and the line (jugon), and there are also those who [call] the same [formation ] jaws (stoma), and others by the "front line of suckers" (protolochia). Everything behind the length, up to hurricane, is called depth. And the arrangement in a straight line [line] in length of the protostats or epistats is called "lining up" (sujugain), while "lining up" (stohein) means [arrangement] in the depth in a straight line between hurricane and lohags. The phalanx is divided into two large parts by dividing the entire front in two along the entire depth. The half of it that [is] on the right is called the right “flank” (keras) and “head” (kefale); the one on the left - the left flank and "tail" (uras). The [place] where the bifurcation occurs is called the “navel” (omphalus), the jaws (stoma), and the bow (araros).

Psils are usually built behind the hoplites, so that they themselves have protection from hoplite weapons, and for the hoplites, in turn, benefit from the throwing from behind. However, when it is necessary, the psils are also located in another place: on both flanks, or, if there is a [natural] obstacle on any one flank: a river, ditch or sea, - only on one [opposite flank], and on dominant height in order to repel an attack in this place of enemies, or to prevent encirclement. Also, the battle formations of the cavalry are placed here and there, so that their location is dictated by usefulness. It is not [the business] of the commander to determine the size of the composition necessary for the army as a whole: however, whatever it may be, he should be taught the formation, exercises and [art] of a quick transition from one formation to another. [Regarding] the number: I would nevertheless advise the commander of the entire [possible] composition to bring into battle such a number that will be convenient for changing battle formations and their regrouping, such as doubling and multiplying, or the same order of decreasing [ranks], or [for] counter-marches (exceligma), or for any other changes in battle formations. Therefore, those who are versed in such things preferred, of all numbers, mainly those numbers that are divisible in two to one: for example, the order of sixteen thousand three hundred and eighty-four, if it concerns hoplites; half of this amount is for psils, and half of the previous one is for horsemen. This number is indeed divisible in half to one, so it is easy to arrange it so that it quickly doubles when collapsing [construction], and when expanded, on the contrary, stretches when necessary. For example, when we set a depth of sixteen men for a sucker, the suckers with this number will be one thousand twenty-four, and they are divided into groups, each of which is given its own name.

Two suckers are called dilochia, out of thirty-two people, and their commander diliohit; four suckers - tetrarchy, and its commander - tetrarch, chief of sixty-four husbands. Two tetrarchies are taxis, there are eight suckers, and a hundred and twenty-eight men, and their commander is a taxiarch. When a unit consists of a hundred, its commander is called accordingly - a centurion (hecatontarch). Two taxis are called syntagma, sixteen suckers, two hundred and fifty-six husbands, and its commander, respectively, is a syntagmatarch. Some call her the xenagia and the xenagus of her commander. For each unit of two hundred and fifty-six [people] there is a selected standard-bearer, hurricane, trumpeter, orderly (hypereth), military herald; the whole syntagma, built by a square, has sixteen [persons] both in length and in depth. The two syntagmas make up [the number in] five hundred and twelve men and thirty-two suckers, and their commander is the pentakosiarch. When it is doubled, a chiliarchy is formed, there are one thousand twenty-four men, sixty-four suckers, and a chiliarch above it. Two chiliarchies - a hierarchy, of two thousand forty-eight people, and its chief is a hierarch, one hundred twenty-eight suckers; some call it telos. Two hierarchies - the phalangarchy, of four thousand ninety-six people, two hundred and fifty-six suckers, and its commander, respectively, is the phalanx. Some call it a strategy, and a commander a strategist. Two phalangarchies - diphalangia, out of eight thousand one hundred ninety-two husbands, five hundred and twelve suckers. This unit is the same as the “unit” (meros) and the “flank” (keras). Two diphalangia are called tetrafalangia, which consists of one thousand twenty-four suckers, [and] sixteen thousand three hundred and eighty-four men, the very total number that we have established for the infantry formation, and it would have two flanks, four phalangarchies, eight hierarchies, chiliarchies sixteen, pentacosyarchies thirty-two, syntagmatarchies sixty-four, taxicarchies one hundred twenty-eight, tetrarchies two hundred fifty-six, dilochias five hundred and twelve, suckers one thousand twenty-four - sequentially.

The phalanx is built in length, where it is necessary to build it more rarefied, if it is expedient for the conditions of the terrain, in depth - where [it is necessary to build] it more dense, if it is necessary to throw off the enemies with cohesion and pressure - as Epaminondas built his Thebans under Leuctra, and under Mantinea - all the Boeotians, forming a semblance of a wedge and leading them to the Lacedaemonians' formation - or, if the attackers have to be repulsed, as it is necessary to build against the Sauromats and Scythians. "Compaction" (pycnosis) is a contraction from the rarer to the denser [structure] along the parastats and epistats, both in length and in depth; "Closing shields" (synaspism) - when you tighten the phalanx to such an extent that the tightness does not allow you to turn the formation in any direction. And on the model of this synaspism, the Romans make a "turtle", mostly square, sometimes round or versatile, depending on the circumstances. Placed on the outer ring of a square or circle, they put up shields in front of them, those standing behind them raise them above their heads, overlapping one [shield] with another. And the entire [formation] is so reliably covered that the projectiles falling from above roll down like on a roof, and even cart stones do not destroy the ceiling, but, having rolled, fall under [their own] weight to the ground.

It is good, among other things, for the suckers to be the tallest, strongest and most experienced in military affairs; for their line keeps [in line] the entire phalanx, and in battles it has the same meaning as the blade of a sword: the latter acts in the same way as all iron weapons. After all, his blow is made precisely by the [hardened] blade, but the rest of the part, even if it is not hardened and soft, still strengthens the blow by its weight; Likewise, someone can consider a line of suckers as the blade of a phalanx, and the army standing behind them as a mass and a weight. It is necessary that the second in valor after the suckers themselves were their epistats: after all, their spear reaches the enemies and they reinforce the onslaught of those who are pushed forward just in front of them. And some people can reach the enemy with a mahaira, striking a blow over the one standing in front of the [lohaga]. If the advanced [warrior] falls or, being wounded, becomes incapable of combat, then the first epistatus, jumping forward, takes the place and position of the lohag, thereby preserving the integrity [of the battle order] of the entire phalanx. The third and fourth ranks should be built, choosing the distance from the first [rank] according to the calculation. From this, the Macedonian phalanx seemed terrible to the enemies not only in deeds, but also in appearance. After all, a hoplite warrior is at most two cubits apart from the others [in a line] in a dense formation (pycnosis), while the length of the sarisa was sixteen feet. Of these, four [feet] extended [behind] to the hand of the holder and the rest of his body, and twelve extended in front of the torso of each of the protostats. The [hoplites] of the second rank, two feet apart from the previous ones, had saris protruding ten feet beyond the protostats, as for the [hoplites] in the third rank, they also raise [the saris] above the protostats eight feet in advance. And the [hoplites] of the fourth [rank] - by six, the fifth - by four, the sixth by two. Thus, in front of each of the protostats, six saris are displayed, arcing backward, so that each hoplite is covered by six saris and, when rushing [forward], presses with sixfold force. Those placed behind the sixth [rank] push — if not with the saris themselves, then with the weight of the bodies — together with those who stand in front of them, so that the onslaught of the phalanx on the enemies becomes insurmountable, and also prevent the protostats from escaping. Urags should be chosen not so much by strength as by their intelligence and experience in military affairs, so that they take care of aligning the ranks and would not allow deserters to leave the battle formations. And when it is required to [form] a synaspism, it is he [hurricane], mainly, that brings those in front of it into a dense formation, and provides full strength to this formation.

Whose philosophical conversations he wrote down and published.

Arrian wrote historical treatises, for example, about India ("Indika"), about the life and campaigns of Alexander the Great ("Anabasis Alexandru"). A passionate dog hunter, Arrian wrote the book On Hunting.

Arrian's writings

Arrian. "Walk of Alexander" ("Anabasis Alexandru").
Arrian. "India" ("Indika").
Arrian. "Bypass Euxine Pontus" ("Periplus").
Fragment (in English) from Photius based on Arrian's book "Events after Alexander".

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Flavian of Constantinople
Flavius Dalmatius

See what "Flavius Arrian" is in other dictionaries:

Arrian- Lucius Flavius Arrian lat. Lucius Flavius Arrianus Occupation: Historian Date of Birth: about 89 Places ... Wikipedia

ARRIAN Flavius- (between 95,175) Ancient Greek historian and writer. The author of the surviving Anabasis Alexander in 7 books (the history of the campaigns of Alexander the Great), India, philosophical writings (in which he expounded the teachings of Epictetus), treatises on military affairs and ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Arrian Flavius- Arrian (Arrianys) Flavius (between 95-175), ancient Greek historian and writer. Born in Nicomedia (M. Asia). Studied in Greece under the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. He held a number of government posts (in 121-124 he was consul) in Rome. About 131-137 ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Arrian- Flavius (Arrianus) one of the prominent Greek writers during the Roman Empire; genus. in Nicomedia, in Bithynia. Under Hadrian, he reached the consulate, and from about 130-138. was the governor in Cappadocia, then, however, retired from business to his ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Arrian- Flavius (c. 95 2nd half of the 2nd century AD) Old Greek. historian and writer. Genus. in M. Asia in the city of Nicomedia. Studied in Greece under the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. Lived in Rome, where he studied military. case. OK. 131 137 the governor of Cappadocia, repelled the attack of the Alans. ... ... Ancient world. encyclopedic Dictionary

Arrian- Flavius, from Nicomedia in Bithynia (c. 95 175), Rome. imperial officer, consul, governor of Cappadocia. A. was a student of Epictetus, whose philosophical conversations he wrote down and published. In addition, A. wrote a historian. treatises, for example about India ("Indika") ... Dictionary of antiquity

ARRIAN Flavius- (Flavius Arrianus) (c. 95 c. 180 AD), an ancient Greek historian originally from Nicomedia (Bithynia in Asia Minor). Arrian's father belonged to the local nobility and was a Roman citizen. Arrian was a listener to the philosopher Epictetus, who lived in Nicopolis (Epirus), ... ... Collier's Encyclopedia

Arrian Flavius- (between 95 and 175), ancient Greek historian and writer. The author of the surviving "Anabasis of Alexander" in 7 books (the history of the campaigns of Alexander the Great), "India", philosophical writings (in which he expounded the teachings of Epictetus), treatises on military affairs ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

ARRIAN- (Arrianos), Flavius (c. 95 2nd half of the 2nd century AD) other Greek. historian and writer. Genus. in M. Asia in the city of Nicomedia. Studied in Greece under the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. Lived in Rome, where he studied military. case. OK. 131,137 governor of Cappadocia, repelled the attack of the Alans ... Soviet Historical Encyclopedia

Arrian, Flavius- (Greek Arrianos) (c. 95 175 AD) Roman statesman and historian, was born into a noble family in Nicomedia, received a good education; disciple of the famous Stoic philosopher Epictetus. A. traveled a lot, visited Athens and Rome. At 131 ... The ancient world. Reference dictionary.

Books

Tactical art, Arrian, In a work entitled "Tactical Art" the famous historian II century. n. e. Flavius Arrian examines Greco-Macedonian military affairs: types of troops, battle formations, weapons and maneuvers, and in ... Category: Theory and history of military art Series: Fontes scripti antiqui Publisher:

Current page: 1 (the book has a total of 26 pages)

Quintus Eppius Flavius Arrian
Alexander's hike

Arrian and his work "Alexander's Campaign"

In this article, we try to orient the reader on issues related to the life and work of Arrian, and dwell on those passages of his work on the Campaign of Alexander, which require special comments. The fact that the article is partially in the nature of comments causes some fragmentation of its parts.

The literature on this issue is immense, so only a few links to those books to which we are closest are provided.

Age of Hellenism

Interest in the era of Alexander the Great grows as more and more written and material data are discovered that illuminate the life and history of those countries that were once part of his state. This era stands in the midst of that difficult historical period for research, which is called the time of Hellenism. We are still not able to clearly imagine what are the features of that time, when it begins and how long it lasts. For ancient historians, and for historians of the 19th century, this segment of history begins with the time of Alexander. The famous historian Droysen put it as follows: "The name of Alexander means the end of one world era, the beginning of another." 1
U. Wilcken. Griechische Geschichte im Rahmen der Altertumsgeschichte. Berlin, 1958, p. 245.

The Hellenistic period, however, began long before Alexander the Great.

Hellenistic time differs in many ways from the time of the classical period. Large-scale land tenure is developing. The movement of slaves is increasing. Trade ties between states are expanding. The presence of large territorial states is characteristic. City-states are being reborn into capitals, into "royal cities". The monarchy is spreading everywhere. Alien conquerors are increasingly mixing with the aborigines and gradually losing their first role in the social life of the conquered countries. As a result of such a mixture, a new culture appears, a science that is based on the richest research of Aristotle. If before him science was to a large extent part of philosophy, then after the great thinker certain scientific disciplines are freed more and more from the tutelage of philosophy. Therefore, they develop, become more vital and more in line with the needs of human life. Literature and art receive new content. A man, his life, his character traits give, starting with the tragedian Euripides, the plots of a new comedy. Sculpture studies the structure of the human body, more and more acquiring a portrait resemblance. Various branches of science and technology flourish. Such a socio-ecocomic structure will be created, which was the foundation for the Roman Empire. This complex process, the social nature of which is still far from being explored, spreads throughout the Greek world and far beyond it. Hellenism also established itself on the territory of the Bosporus kingdom. However, there are fewer such eloquent monuments, which abound in Egypt and which are found more and more in Asia.

Alexander's campaign to the east is one of the manifestations of Hellenism. He made such a great impression on ancient historians that they considered him the key to the beginning of a new era. This campaign made it possible for the Macedonians and Greeks to get acquainted with unknown or little-known tribes and nationalities, their way of life and culture. Alexander was personally very interested in studying distant Asia with a way of life so alien to the Greeks. And he was surrounded by talented scientists who, in their books, described in detail everything they saw and studied during the campaign. Military disciplines made a big leap forward: tactics and strategy, issues of supplying the army, ensuring communications of troops (building roads, bridges), organizing the rear. In connection with the pursuit of a broad policy of conquest and the expansion of the scale of state activity, the task of organizing the management of the conquered territories arises, as well as the need to find forms of intercourse with foreign states. A special task arose in the field of navigation: it became necessary to adapt Greek ships to sail in the open and stormy seas washing the southern coast of Asia from India to Arabia. Many new problems faced Alexander and his staff during this campaign. therefore, it is not surprising that the personality of Alexander aroused more and more interest. They began to attribute to him innovations and discoveries that were by no means the fruit of his own creativity. He borrowed a lot from the population of the conquered territories, a lot was found and invented by those prominent figures on whom he relied.

Alexander's contemporaries were divided into admiring supporters who adored him, and persons who condemned the campaign, associated with great human sacrifices and ruin. Among his closest friends and co-workers were those who knew how to sensibly appreciate the activities of Alexander, to really weigh his positive and negative actions. Their opinions are especially valuable for historians, and the more we understand through the thickness of literary layers their views, the easier it is to recreate the historical role of Alexander.

Study of the campaign of Alexander the Great in the XX century. entered a new phase 2
W. W. Tarn. Alexander the Great. I – II. London, 1948.

Archaeological studies of the places where the Macedonian troops marched are increasingly shedding light on the history of the tribes that once inhabited these areas. At the same time, we learn a lot to clarify the important details of this campaign: what organizational forms Alexander borrowed from local states for the establishment of policies and for the organization of troops, cult issues that Alexander had to reckon with, etc. In this regard, and a wonderful monument "Alexander's Campaign" as narrated by Arrian becomes clearer.

The historian studying the era of Alexander has at his disposal many monuments: coins, architectural monuments, household monuments, papyri, parchments. There are more and more of them every year. There are also a number of literary texts. Plutarch, Diodorus, Strabo, and many others also wrote about Alexander. All of them have their own tendencies, all in one way or another distort the legend about the Macedonian commander or reflect his appearance distorted by the sources used. Among these literary monuments, the already mentioned "Walk of Alexander", written by the inquisitive Flavius Arrian, stands out.

Arrian's life and work

Arrian was born in Bithynia, in Asia Minor. The year of birth is not known exactly, apparently around 90–95, but died presumably in 175 AD. e. His hometown is Nicomedia, which played a significant role in the history of Rome. Bithynia was at that time a wealthy Roman province with a large number of Greek inhabitants, aspiring, as in other Roman provinces, for a Roman administrative and military career. The inscriptions found in Bithynia tell a lot about these persons and such, for example, writers as Dion, a famous rhetorician from the city of Prusy in Bithynia (approximately 40-120), Pliny the Younger, who corresponded with Emperor Trajan during his travels around Bithynia, other.

He came from a fairly prominent family. Cassius Dpon Kokceian (about 155–235) from the Bithinian Nicaea wrote his biography, but it has not reached us. Therefore, our information about him is only speculative. 4
By the way, Arrian's biographer is related to the aforementioned Dion from Prusa. It is possible that Cassius Dion wrote a biography of his fellow countryman, prompted by a personal acquaintance. Complicated generic name - Eppius Flavius - the result of adoption.

His family began to be called Flavius, along with many other wealthy Bithynian families during the reign of the Flavian emperors, that is, from the second half of the 1st century. n. e. The time when the family or her ancestors received Roman citizenship is difficult to indicate with certainty, perhaps under the same Flavias. It is known that Emperor Vespasian, the founder of the Flavian dynasty, showed great interest and goodwill towards the provincial aristocracy and opened her access to the senatorial estate, having previously endowed her with Roman citizenship 5
N. A. Mashkin. History of Rome. M., 1947, p. 432.

Arrian received an excellent Greek education. Speaking Greek and Roman, he was an extremely convenient person to represent Roman interests in Greek cities. Like all the youths of his circle who were about to make their way into Roman society, he received a good training in the field of rhetoric and philosophy. As a writer, he imitated Xenophon (430–355 BC), a famous student of Socrates. The versatile subject matter of Arrian's writings puts this beyond any doubt. But it seems that both his upbringing and training were built according to this scheme, widespread in the eastern cities of the ancient world. Like Xenophon, he was prepared for a career in military practice, just like Xenophon, he studied eloquence and philosophy. His rhetorical art is illustrated by speeches included in Alexander's Campaign. Arrian's philosophical ideal was Epictetus (approximately AD 50-133). With him, Arrian, apparently, studied in Nicomedia between 112 and 116. This representative of ethical philosophy gained great fame for his teachings, and in addition, he made a great impression on his contemporaries and the way of his life. If Xenophon studied with Socrates and considered it a moral duty to glorify him in his writings, then Arrian did the same in relation to his beloved teacher Epictetus. Like Socrates, Epictetus himself did not write a single line. He was born a slave and began his philosophical career as a representative of the ancient stand. At first, his teachings incurred the hatred of influential Romans, and at the end of the 1st century. n. e. he was expelled from Italy, where he had many supporters, and he settled in the city of Nikopol in Epirus. His teaching of mature years for a long time became the official worldview of the Roman military nobility. Of the philosophical disciplines, he gave preference to ethics, and did not pay attention to physics and logic. In his ethical teaching, there are many thoughts similar to Christianity of the time when it was still the spokesman for some social protest from the lower strata of the Roman slave-owning society. Arrian was so carried away by his teacher that he wrote down the "Conversations of Epictetus" and the "Manual on the Doctrine of Epictetus", apparently without seeking to publish them. The language of these notes is simple, easily accessible to the reader. Probably, Arrian transmitted the teachings of Epictetus, without subjecting his memories to literary processing. This is how his book differs significantly from the "Memoirs of Socrates" and other books about him written by Xenophon and Plato. In these books, the literary side of the story was so dominant that the factual basis receded into the background. The historical image of Socrates cannot be restored from them.

According to the teachings of Epictetus, a person must unquestioningly submit to providence and discard everything that can distract him from peace of mind. It is necessary to improve in such a way as to "abstain and endure." The best way to calm the soul - "healing" the soul - is philosophy. The focus on self-improvement was supposed to help divert attention from struggles, especially political ones. This goal was served by the teaching of Epictetus at all times.

As already mentioned, Arrian did not set himself the goal of making a literary work from the records of the teachings of Epictetus. However, they became the property of a wide range of readers, but without the knowledge of the author. Arrian was compared to Xenophon, they even called him "the new Xenophon." The similarity of their subject matter was probably the main reason for this comparison. After his philosophical treatises, Arrian writes about travel and military affairs, as Xenophon did. From our point of view, Arriana should be considered a greater specialist in this area than Kssnophon. From a young age he was well trained in military science both theoretically and practically. The description of the countries clearly reveals in him a specialist-strategist: it is not the beauty of the described places that seduces him, but their importance as strategic points. In our tradition, Arrian opens this kind of work with a description of the Black Sea coast. An accurate knowledge of the area was essential for Roman expansion. This "Description" falls into three parts. The first part he addresses to the Emperor Hadrian; it tells the story of Arrian's visit to the Black Sea, before being received by him in 131 on behalf of the emperor. The second part is stingy with descriptions, it only talks about the distances between points on the coast from the Thracian Bosporus to Trebizond. The third part contained a description of the journey from Sebastopolis (Dioscuriada) to Byzantium. All three parts served different purposes. If the first satisfied more general geographic interests, the other two pursued practical goals; they were navigational guides. In ancient times, the description of such routes was very common. They were used by sailing merchants who set off to unknown countries. They were of particular importance for naval campaigns, giving an idea of where garrisons should be deployed in the newly conquered countries.

Another work, once attributed to Arrian, has survived under the title Travels along the Coasts of the Red Sea. Apparently, the same title and the same plot forced them to be attributed to the same author. And the description of the Red Sea contains a thorough description of the port sea points. This is a very valuable work. It indicates everything that a merchant-sailor needs to know during a long "walk" in the Red Sea, along the shores of southern Arabia, India, etc. However, along with the information that was known to the author from his own observation, there are also fantastic reports, which, perhaps, he himself did not believe, but did not dare to throw away. This kind of literature found imitators at a much later time. However, philological science long ago abandoned the idea of considering Arrian the author of the description of the Red Sea: this is not allowed by both the stylistic manner alien to him, and the peculiarities of his language.

Then he was, apparently, already a senator. The task of the commission was to determine the exact boundaries of the "sacred" land of the Delphic temple. The office work was carried out in Greek and Latin. This is a small illustration of how the emperors recruited officials from Greek cities for this kind of business. In the years 121-124, Emperor Hadrian conferred on Arrian the rank of consul 8
W. Christ-Schmid, c. cit., II, 2, p. 746.

From 131 to 137, he, as the personal legate of the emperor, ruled the province of Cappadocia, a place of great responsibility. Cappadocia was then subjected to continuous attacks from the Alans, and the emperor Hadrian was forced to send there a person experienced in military affairs. Apparently, the choice was made well. This can be concluded from the very lively judgments about military issues included in Arrian's story about Alexander's campaign. Arrian received solid practical knowledge of military affairs while in the civil service, participating in campaigns. However, we have no data to clarify. By reasoning, we can still form a definite opinion about the knowledge of Arrian. Without his own experience, Arrian would not have been able to understand the sources he used when working on Alexander's Campaign. Remarks about the battle at Gaugamela and in other points, about the battle formations of Alexander's troops, the preference of some sources for others testify not only to Arrian's common sense, but also to his deep knowledge. From the characteristics of the geographical features of Istra, the Inn and Sava rivers, we can conclude that he once visited here 9
Arrianus. Indica, 4.15.

Arrian's remark about how the Romans built bridges is especially characteristic.

The researcher Arrian, analyzing the corresponding place in his work, involuntarily faces the question: did Arrian judge this or that problem only by the sources, or, borrowing reasoning from the source, adds his remarks, or, finally, illuminates the problem based on his own observations, as an eyewitness ...

In the first part of the above passage, Arrian used the testimony of Herodotus, and the story of Roman bridge building is presented in such a way that one has to consider it a memory from his own practice. The final phrases are especially interesting: “Everything ends very quickly, and, despite the noise and rumbling, the order in the work is observed. It happens that encouraging cries of encouragement are heard from each ship and abuse is poured on those who lag behind, but this does not interfere with either following orders or working with great speed. " 11
Ibid, V.7.5. Caesar can be compared with this account (Bellum Gallicum. IV. 17).

This description seems to show us the warlord Arrian, surrounded by working sappers, who encourages them by shouting or scolding. He could not read this detail in any source. It is felt that the old officer recalls with some excitement a case from his practice of hurriedly building bridges, i.e. crossings across the Rhine and Istres, the Euphrates and the Tigris during hostilities. These considerations of ours lead us to assume that at some stage of his life he participated in the indicated places in hostilities. Such campaigns could have taken place during the reign of Hadrian (117–138), when the Romans waged a desperate struggle to preserve the integrity of the empire against the Dacians, Celts and in the east. We know that Arrian was well informed, not only theoretically, from his work on the tactics he wrote, apparently in connection with the governorship in Cappadocia. Questions of tactics were discussed even under Trajan. In 136, the emperor Hadrian commissioned Arrian to compose a new work on this issue. Apparently, Adrian wanted such a book to have the character of a textbook. 12

To train military leaders and to take into account the new tactical views of Adrian himself. This guide is divided into two sections. In the first, Arrian outlined the tactics of the previous period, that is, the Greeks and Macedonians, and the second part explained the meaning and significance of Hadrian's reforms in the field of cavalry tactics. For the first part, Arrian had to use special literature, and in the second part he explains the special terminology. The "History of the Alans", which undoubtedly also arose during the rule of Cappadocia, belongs to the same range of questions. From this book survived a passage "Formation against the Alans", which outlines the difference between Greek and Roman tactics.

From the end of the reign of Hadrian, Arrian is removed from participation in Roman state and military life. The reasons for this are unknown to us. But the termination of state and military service in Rome does not mean a complete retirement from business for Arrian: from now on, he, perhaps, more intensively and more than before, devotes himself to literary activity, and he occupies only local positions. In 147, Arrian was elected as an eponymous archon in Athens and awarded civil rights in the demos of Payania. 13
IG, 3, 1116.

This post had no great political significance: the archon-eponym headed only the college of archons, and the year was named after him - for a narrow circle of Athens. Of course, Arrian could only hold this position with the consent of the Roman emperor. Further, it is also testified that Arrian in Nicomedia was chosen as a priest of the goddesses of the underworld of Demeter and Persephone. No further information on his life path is found.

Arrian's book "On the Hunt" is closely related to Xenophon. It was written in Athens, when Arrian was under the spell of this writer. In this work, he supplements Xenophon's information with information from the hunting practice of the Celts. 12
W. Christ-Schmid, c. cit., II, 2, p. 748.

We have to regret that the biographies of Timoleon and Dion, who interested Arrian as strategists, did not reach us. They would help us, perhaps, to understand more clearly what the peculiarities of Arrian the biographer are. In the II century. n. e. this literary genre has already been developed and represented by a number of major writers, of whom Plutarch is the most famous. What, according to Arrian, was included in the concept of biography, you need to know when studying his "Campaign of Alexander", conceived to a large extent as a biographical work.

Arrian also probably owns the lost biography of the robber Tillobor. 14
Luc. Alex., 2; Cic. de off., II.40.

Literary interest in the biographies of "noble robbers" arises even in pre-Hellenistic times. Theopompus talked about the just robber or prince Bardulis. Cicero, in his treatise on duties, on the basis of the relevant literature, speaks of the organization of the relationship between the robbers. We know little about the reason for the emergence of this topic. The Stoics showed by the examples of these "despicable" people that a person is born with a desire for some order, a desire for ethical standards. Perhaps the Stoic Arrian was interested in their social life precisely from this point of view.

The literature on this issue is immense, so only a few links to those books to which we are closest are provided.

Age of Hellenism

Interest in the era of Alexander the Great grows as more and more written and material data are discovered that illuminate the life and history of those countries that were once part of his state. This era stands in the midst of that difficult historical period for research, which is called the time of Hellenism. We are still not able to clearly imagine what are the features of that time, when it begins and how long it lasts. For ancient historians, and for historians of the 19th century, this segment of history begins with the time of Alexander. The famous historian Droysen put it as follows: "The name of Alexander means the end of one world era, the beginning of another." The Hellenistic period, however, began long before Alexander the Great.

Study of the campaign of Alexander the Great in the XX century. entered a new phase. Archaeological studies of the places where the Macedonian troops marched are increasingly shedding light on the history of the tribes that once inhabited these areas. At the same time, we learn a lot to clarify the important details of this campaign: what organizational forms Alexander borrowed from local states for the establishment of policies and for the organization of troops, cult issues that Alexander had to reckon with, etc. In this regard, and a wonderful monument "Alexander's Campaign" as narrated by Arrian becomes clearer.

Arrian's life and work

The full name of the author of Alexander's Campaign is Quintus Eppius Flavius Arrian. He came from a fairly prominent family. Cassius Dpon Kokceian (about 155–235) from the Bithinian Nicaea wrote his biography, but it has not reached us. Therefore, our information about him is only speculative. His family began to be called Flavius, along with many other wealthy Bithynian families during the reign of the Flavian emperors, that is, from the second half of the 1st century. n. e. The time when the family or her ancestors received Roman citizenship is difficult to indicate with certainty, perhaps under the same Flavias. It is known that the emperor Vespasian, the founder of the Flavian dynasty, showed great interest and goodwill towards the provincial aristocracy and gave her access to the senatorial estate, having previously endowed her with Roman citizenship.

The philosophy of Epictetus, especially popular in the 2nd century, asserted that wise and just providence reigns in the universe. This gave the teachings of Epictetus the character of a monotheistic religion, which the Roman state needed during the period of the empire. He was even supported by some emperors, such as the famous "philosopher on the throne" Marcus Aurelius. According to the teachings of Epictetus, a person must unquestioningly submit to providence and discard everything that can distract him from peace of mind. It is necessary to improve in such a way as to "abstain and endure." The best way to calm the soul - "healing" the soul - is philosophy. The focus on self-improvement was supposed to help divert attention from struggles, especially political ones. This goal was served by the teaching of Epictetus at all times.

After completing his studies in philosophy with Epictetus, Arrian devotes himself entirely to serving the Roman state. An inscription accidentally discovered mentions Arrian among the imperial delegates in Greece under the command of Avidius Nigrin. This refers to 116, then, apparently, he was already a senator. The task of the commission was to determine the exact boundaries of the "sacred" land of the Delphic temple. The office work was carried out in Greek and Latin. This is a small illustration of how the emperors recruited officials from Greek cities for this kind of business. In the years 121–124, Emperor Hadrian conferred the rank of consul on Arrian. From 131 to 137, he, as the personal legate of the emperor, ruled the province of Cappadocia, a place of great responsibility. Cappadocia was then subjected to continuous attacks from the Alans, and the emperor Hadrian was forced to send there a person experienced in military affairs. Apparently, the choice was made well. This can be concluded from the very lively judgments about military issues included in Arrian's story about Alexander's campaign. Arrian received solid practical knowledge of military affairs while in the civil service, participating in campaigns. However, we have no data to clarify. By reasoning, we can still form a definite opinion about the knowledge of Arrian. Without his own experience, Arrian would not have been able to understand the sources he used when working on Alexander's Campaign. Remarks about the battle at Gaugamela and in other points, about the battle formations of Alexander's troops, the preference of some sources for others testify not only to Arrian's common sense, but also to his deep knowledge. From the characteristics of the geographical features of Istra, the Inn and Sava rivers, we can conclude that he once visited here. Arrian's remark about how the Romans built bridges is especially characteristic.

Arrian's work admits only this latter interpretation. This is supported, firstly, by the fact that the remark about the methods of building bridges by Roman soldiers here interrupts the story of Alexander's progress. The impetus for this logical retreat was given by thinking about that. how Alexander threw a bridge over the Indus River. Arrian knows two kinds of bridges: permanent bridges and temporary bridges. He believes that Alexander was unlikely to build the bridge in the same way as bridges were built at Darius across the Danube or at Kssrkss across the Hellespont. Arrian writes: “... or the bridge was built in the way that, if necessary, the Romans use on Istria, on the Celtic Rhine, on the Euphrates and the Tigris. The fastest way to build bridges among the Romans, I know, is to build a bridge on ships; I’ll talk about how it’s done now, because it’s worth mentioning. ” In the first part of the above passage, Arrian used the testimony of Herodotus, and the story of Roman bridge building is presented in such a way that one has to consider it a memory from his own practice. The final phrases are especially interesting: “Everything ends very quickly, and, despite the noise and rumbling, the order in the work is observed. It happens that from every ship there are encouraging cries and abuse pours down on those who lag behind, but this does not interfere with either following orders or working with great speed. " This description seems to show us the warlord Arrian, surrounded by working sappers, who encourages them by shouting or scolding. He could not read this detail in any source. It is felt that the old officer recalls with some excitement a case from his practice of hurriedly building bridges, i.e. crossings across the Rhine and Istres, the Euphrates and the Tigris during hostilities. These considerations of ours lead us to assume that at some stage of his life he participated in the indicated places in hostilities. Such campaigns could have taken place during the reign of Hadrian (117–138), when the Romans waged a desperate struggle to preserve the integrity of the empire against the Dacians, Celts and in the east. We know that Arrian was well informed, not only theoretically, from his work on the tactics he wrote, apparently in connection with the governorship in Cappadocia. Questions of tactics were discussed even under Trajan. In 136, the emperor Hadrian commissioned Arrian to compose a new work on this issue. Apparently, Adrian wanted such a book to have the character of a textbook for the training of military leaders and to take into account the new tactical views of Adrian himself. This guide is divided into two sections. In the first, Arrian outlined the tactics of the previous period, that is, the Greeks and Macedonians, and the second part explained the meaning and significance of Hadrian's reforms in the field of cavalry tactics. For the first part, Arrian had to use special literature, and in the second part he explains the special terminology. The "History of the Alans", which undoubtedly also arose during the rule of Cappadocia, belongs to the same range of questions. From this book survived a passage "Formation against the Alans", which outlines the difference between Greek and Roman tactics.

Arrian also belongs, probably, to the lost biography of the robber Tillobor. Literary interest in the biographies of "noble robbers" arises even in pre-Hellenistic times. Theopompus talked about the just robber or prince Bardulis. Cicero, in his treatise on duties, on the basis of the relevant literature, speaks of the organization of the relationship between the robbers. We know little about the reason for the emergence of this topic. The Stoics showed by the examples of these "despicable" people that a person is born with a desire for some order, a desire for ethical standards. Perhaps the Stoic Arrian was interested in their social life precisely from this point of view.

Description of Alexander's campaign

The central place in the work of Arrian is undoubtedly his "Campaign of Alexander". This remarkable work is the best exposition of the work of Alexander, which was written in antiquity. From a purely external point of view, we can establish that Arrian writes under the influence of Xenophon. Just as Xenophon in his "Campaign 10,000" tells about the campaign of Cyrus the Younger, Arrian illuminates the campaign of Alexander step by step. This work is divided into seven books - also in imitation of Xenophon. Before Arrian, many works about Alexander appeared. But their authors did not try to communicate the truth about the deeds and days of their hero. Alexander did not find himself a historian who could tell about him "in a dignified manner." If Arrian asserts that about Alexander “is not written either in prose or in verse,” then this, of course, does not correspond to the truth. Indeed, at the beginning of the book about the "Campaign" he asserts that "there is no person at all about whom they write more and more contradictory." Arrian even promises to mention "the stories that circulate about Alexander" as necessary. This is done throughout the book. Arrian ends his assessment of the literature about Alexander in the introduction with the words: “If anyone wonders why it occurred to me to write about Alexander, when so many people wrote about him, then let him first read all their writings, get to know mine - and then let him be surprised ". So the point, of course, is not the absence of literature about Alexander, but the fact that from the point of view of Arrian as a qualified military leader, all these writings are not able to give an adequate idea of

Alexandra. And therefore, they know much more about the commanders, who cannot be compared with Alexander. Alexander did not find such a writer as Cyrus found in the person of Kssnophon. Arrian wanted to be such a writer for Alexander. That Alexander, as a commander, stood immeasurably higher than Cyrus, was for Arrian undoubtedly. “This is what prompted me to write about him; I don’t think I’m not worthy to take on the task of illuminating the deeds of Alexander to people. Therefore, I say, I took up this essay. Who I am, I myself know and do not need to give my name (it is not unknown to people as it is), to name my fatherland and family and talk about what position I was invested in in my homeland. Let me tell you this: these occupations have become my fatherland, family, and position, and this has been so since my youth. Therefore, I believe that I deserve a place among the first Hellenic writers, if Alexander is the first among the warriors. " The thought involuntarily suggests itself that Arrian's plan to describe Alexander's campaign matured in his youth, and it is very likely that not only himself, but also his friends and foes, such an undertaking seemed inconsistent with the forces and position of Arrian, especially since books already existed on this topic. Only many years later, having gained knowledge in the military field and related sciences, having accumulated a lot of life experience, was he able to implement this plan - to become Xenophon for Alexander. Proceeding from this, it seems that the "Campaign" was written by a mature connoisseur, as recommended by both the story itself and his judgments. The "campaign" was written, obviously, at the end or rather after the end of Arrian's active military activities, that is, after the death of Emperor Hadrian. It would be interesting to know what biographical literature about Alexander existed before Arrian, about which he speaks so disapprovingly at the beginning of the book.

We know that Plutarch was interested in the life of Alexander. Excerpts on papyri by unknown authors have come down to us. We know the name of Soterich, who, under the emperor Diocletian, wrote the epic about the capture of Thebes by Alexander the Great. Even in pre-Roman times, the "novel about Alexander" was being composed, which was especially popular in the first three centuries of the Roman Empire. In the II century. n. e. A favorite topic for rhetorical exercises is the fictional correspondence between Darius and Alexander. Such letters have also been found in recent years on papyrus in the sands of Egypt. Compared to Arrian's conscientious work, their historical significance is negligible. The moralizing treatises were especially interested in the moral assessment of Alexander and (page with the picture - Smolyanin) the question of whether Alexander owes his successes to his own merits or "happiness." The time of Emperor Trajan especially encouraged interest in Alexander and the assessment of his activities, since Trajan willingly compared himself with Alexander and favored those who made this comparison. Of course, such a hobby favored the appearance of works about Alexander and could indirectly contribute to the appearance of Arrian's "Campaign of Alexander". The question arose: who is higher as a commander - Alexander or the Roman generals? We learn about this problem from the work of the sophist-orator Aelius Aristides (117-189 CE). He, of course, answered very evasively: Alexander, they say, is the largest commander, but he did not know how to manage the conquered territories. With this answer, he did not humiliate the Macedonian commander, and managed to please the Romans. But it is not the formulation of the question and its solution by Elius Aristides that is important: it is interesting under what conditions Alexander the Great was recognized by the official Rome as a genius commander. Alexander's praise alone could not satisfy Arrian. In his work, with all the positive attitude towards his hero, he tries to recognize the negative features of his behavior.

Arrian's description of India occupies a special place in his "Alexander's Campaign". He was very interested in this country. This was common to all Greeks; India for them was then an unknown country, only fragmentary and contradictory stories, embellished with myth-making, reached about it. Storytellers associated the feats of the ancient gods with this country. In his "Campaign of Alexander" Arrian formulates the questions to which his readers could expect an answer from him: neither about the outlandish animals that live in this country, nor about the fish and monsters that are found in the Indus, Hydaspe, Ganges and other Indian rivers; I do not write about the ants that mine gold, or about the vultures that guard it. All these are stories, created more for entertainment than for the purpose of a truthful description of reality, as well as other ridiculous fables about the Indians, which no one will neither investigate nor refute. " He pays tribute to the discoveries of Alexander and his associates in the field of the life of the Indians, the geography of the region, etc. But he refuses the idea of describing India in more detail than the framework of the story about the "Campaign" allows.

“About the Indians, however, I will write separately: I will collect the authentic in the stories of those who fought with Alexander: Nearchus, who traveled around the Great Indian Seafood, in the writings of two famous men, Eratosthenes and Megasthenes, and I will tell you about the customs of the Indians, about the outlandish animals that are found there, and the journey itself along the Outer Sea. " He refuses to report anything about their teachings in the appropriate place (concerning the movement of the brahmanas). He only says that these are Indian sages. “In a book about India,” he says, “I’ll talk about their wisdom (if they have a net at all).” And Arrian actually wrote a book about India. The source of the book was information provided by Nearchus, the commander of Alexander's fleet. After completing the task of Alexander (that is, sailing from the Indus on the Outer Sea), Nearchus reported in detail to the Macedonian king. “About the voyage of Nearchus from the Indus to the Persian Sea and to the mouths of the Tigris,” says Arriai, “I will write separately, following Nearchus's own work — there is this Greek book about Alexander. I will do it later, if desires and God direct me to this. " Only in one part did Arrian fail to fulfill his promise: he did not write about the teachings of the brahmanas. Attempts already by ancient writers (for example, Strabo) to challenge the authenticity of Nearchus's work on India are untenable. Strabo's distrust is based on the fact that some of the details of India's description could not be explained by the science of modern Strabo. The current knowledge of geography confirms much that at one time seemed incredible.

The rest of Arrian's writings have not survived. This is especially regrettable, since they talked about times that are poorly reflected in other sources. So, in particular, from 10 books of the history of the time after Alexander the Great, pitiful remnants have come down to us. But these 10 books were a very detailed exposition of only a two-year history of the Diadochi, that is, the Hellenistic rulers after the death of the Macedonian conqueror. The loss of the work "History of Bithynia" (in 8 books), ie, the country where the writer was born, is especially annoying, because in this work Arrian probably collected very interesting and reliable information. True, this work embraced only the initial period of the history of Bithynia - up to 75 BC. e., when the country was ruled by king Nicomedes III. Arrian also wrote The History of the Parthians, which consisted of 17 books. Her particular interest was that it was brought before Trajan's Parthian War (113–117), of which Arrian was a contemporary. We know nothing about the time when these works were written; we also know very little about their nature. Papyrus finds bring from time to time information about the era of the Diadochi, but it is not possible to establish how these fragments relate to the works of Arrian.

Arrian's sources

One of the main questions for researchers of Arrian's work about the campaign of Alexander the Great is the problem of its sources, or otherwise - about the reliability of the historical material that makes up the backbone of the narrative. It is also important how Arrian was able to use his sources.

Even under Father Alexander. Philippe, there was a brilliantly organized chancellery at the Macedonian court. Alexander inherited this institution and turned it partly into his field office. In connection with the large scale of Alexander's activities, the duties of the chancellery also increased, the importance of that aspect of its activities, which was associated with the preparation and conduct of wars, increased. This is evidenced by the fact that Eumenes of Cardia stood at the head of the office, a man who, during the campaign, was involved as the leader of the cavalry. The chancellery retained its military character under Alexander until the end of his days. Eumenes was given the title of "supreme secretary". All state correspondence passed through his hands: letters from the tsar, orders, legalizations, etc. The office kept plans for military operations and reports on them, everyday records, in the preparation and preservation of which Alexander was very interested. Thanks to this, the dates of the battle and descriptions of the course of military events have been preserved. We can get an idea of the organization of the chanceries, so to speak, the clerical style of Macedonia from the numerous documents that have come down to us from the offices of senior officials of Ptolemaic Egypt - I mean the so-called "Zeno's archive". Zeno was the right hand of Apollonius, the closest associate of Ptolsmey II Philadelphus, the chief ruler of the economic life of Egypt. The obliging Zeno, with exceptional consistency, made sure that each document from the correspondence contained the following information. When the document arrived, it was written on the back of it: who is the sender, to whom the letter is addressed, what is the content of the letter, where it was received, the date of receipt, i.e. year, month, day, sometimes hour. This made it possible to draw up, if necessary, summaries of letters, reports, etc. Since in important cases the time of departure was indicated in the letter itself, this entry on the back of the letter served as a supporting document in case of a question about the timeliness of delivery (page with a picture. - Smolyanin) letters and the timeliness of the execution of orders. The letter of Apollonius to Zeno is indicative in this respect. It contained an order to send transport animals to meet the envoys of the Bosporus king Pairisad II. The letter is dated (translated into the modern calendar) 254 BC. B.C., September 21. On the back with the other hand, that is, the hand of Zeno's secretary, it is written that the letter was received the same year on September 22 at 1 o'clock and concerns the sending of transport animals for the ambassadors of Payrisad and the ambassadors of the city of Argos. It seems that such a clear style of document registration has been practiced for a long time.

Unfortunately, few letters from Alexander the Great have survived in Arrian's work. We learn about Alexander's letter to the Athenians, in which Alexander demands the extradition of political enemies. In a few words, a letter is given to the Olympics, to the mother, about the Indians. Interesting are two letters to Darius, whose wife, mother and children were captured by Alexander. These letters are given in detail. They piqued the interest of the readers and became the subject of rhetorical exercises, as already mentioned. The researchers doubted the authenticity of these letters until one of the Russian scientists proved it. The letters contained both private information and political information. They survived until Arrian, apparently together with an extremely important document - "palace diaries", which are believed to have been kept since the beginning of Alexander's reign. We do not know whether records were made with the same detail in all parts of these "diaries" as in the part about which Arrian's work left more detailed information. Here, in exceptional succession, the course of Alexander's last illness is recounted. Apparently, little was said about "signs" here. And all the details concerning the government, orders, political events, the dispatch of correspondence and changes in personnel were taken into account in a strictly chronological order. Keeping these records demanded thoughtfulness. the work of a very understanding and responsible person. This work was headed by the same Eumenes. All figures from Alexander's entourage, thanks to the presence of "diaries", could always be aware of those affairs and events in the state that concerned them.

The "palace diaries" described in detail the illness and death of Alexander. It must not be admitted that Arrian would not have used it properly with such detailed notes. We have heard the deaf information that some historian Strattides from the city of Olynthos specially studied the ephemeris of Alexander and wrote, by the way, 5 books about his death. It is possible that this entry in the "diaries" stood out so much in its detail that it was not only Arrian's attention that caught the attention. After all, from a political point of view, the last days of Alexander's life attracted the attention of descendants. Everyone should have been interested in the question of whether Alexander died as a result of an illness or was poisoned - poison was often used both at the Macedonian court and at other Hellenistic courts. It is recorded how Alexander's farewell to the army took place. The most important question is also raised: were Alexander's orders on "succession to the throne" made? It is especially important that, according to Arrian's testimony, his main sources, Aristobulus and Ptolemy, wrote about the same thing that stood in the "diaries." These details depict Alexander's daily life, of course, in a somewhat unusual setting. The question of the heir was not resolved by Alexander: the statement that he would bequeath his kingdom to the "best" was interpreted by his remaining associates in different ways. The word "best" does not quite exhaust the meaning of the Greek term, which also contains the connotation of "the bravest." It seems that these words are "edited" in the "diaries" somewhat tendentiously, as well as Alexander's subsequent indication that after his death there will be a great struggle. She untied almost immediately. Naturally, Alexander could not predict it, and his death throes deprived him of the possibility of political prophecy.

In addition to the "diaries", Arrian also used literary works. If in the "diaries" one can see some traces of tendentious processing, then in the literary treatises that Arrian had at his disposal, there was a lot of room for contradictory political tendencies. Some authors were on the side of Alexander, others were more or less hostile to him. Arrian's position was difficult. He followed only the stories of his contemporaries-eyewitnesses: Ptolemy, son of Lagus, and Aristobulus, son of Aristobulus. He motivates this choice by the fact that they had the opportunity to see what Alexander was doing, since they took part in the campaign. Ptolemy, who himself became king, the first Hellenistic ruler of Egypt, his official position made it impossible to distort the truth. Numerous other authors of descriptions of the life and activities of the Macedonian king wrote tendentiously: those who lived even under Alexander were afraid of him and therefore wrote only what he pleased, the rest was silent or embellished, counting on a reward or hoping to make a career for exposition pleasing to the powerful king.

Ptolemy - a major military and political figure - especially to Arrian's taste. He really liked Ptolemy's awareness of the art of war at that time. A native of the old Macedonian nobility, an experienced commander, a sober politician, this founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty, Arrian was known for more than one campaign of Alexander. After the death of the conqueror king, Ptolemy took part in the struggle between the diadochi. When Alexander's monarchy collapsed, Ptolemy managed to become a satrap in Egypt, using both cunning and sword. He did not seek to restore the kingdom to the extent of Alexander's conquests. A realistic figure, soberly considering the situation, he decided to limit his power mainly to Egypt, and despite the fact that after Alexander there were a number of rulers, the legitimate heirs of the Macedonian king, Ptolemsy retained his independence and the independence of his country. He increased the authority of his reign by the fact that he was able to "shelter" the ashes of Alexander in Egypt and declare himself the successor of the deceased, and present his rule as a direct continuation of his policy. In 304, he replaced the title of satrap with a royal title, and only in a ripe old age gave way to his son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, whom he appointed co-ruler two years before his death. Arrian knew all this. We do not know what the name of the work of Ptolemy, which formed the basis of Arrian's works, was called. Arrian's judgments become especially confident when the works of Ptolemy and Aristobulus coincide in their content. But this is not always the case. In this case, Arrian chooses, usually giving preference to Ptolemsu.

We know very little about Aristobulus. He died in Kassandria, at an advanced age: there is evidence that he lived to be 84 years old. Although Arrian says that Aristobulus participated in Alexander's campaign, however, there is only one mention that Aristobulus carried out the order of the Macedonian commander: he was ordered to put in order the tomb of Cyrus. The assignment was of political importance, since Alexander, after rapprochement with the Persian aristocracy, greatly valued the sanctuaries of his new friends. After its restoration, Cyrus's grave was guarded; the entrance to it was sealed with the royal seal.

The personality of Ptolemy and his activities, his interests and knowledge in military affairs appear sharply and definitely in Arrian's exposition. We learn that Ptolemy turned out to be loyal to Alexander at a difficult moment in his life. He was in Alexander's retinue during the battle with Darius. We read how Ptolemy became a "bodyguard." This tried and tested friend of Alexander's weight more often and more often carries out important assignments of the tsar. This is what Ptolemy spoke about. Apparently, his work was a personal diary revised after Alexander's death. It reported in detail about the preparation of sieges, battles, and also talked about how Alexander, in the interests of saving the forces of the army, chose such plans that did not require large losses. If Ptolemy gave geographical descriptions of the area, then only those that explained the course of the offensive: purely geographical problems did not interest him. So, he is interested in the Indus River only in connection with the plan to cross it. Ptolemy participated in Alexander's correspondence with Darius's wife and mother. He is entrusted with the capture of Bess. He directed the burning of the Indian sage Kalan. On the story of Ptolemus lies, of course, a touch of some excessive emphasis on his merits, similar to boasting. So, in the story about the fight against the cossacks, Arrian, following Ptolemy, writes: "He (ie Alexander, - O. K.) was not prevented by either winter or off-road - neither he nor Ptolemy, the son of Lag, who commanded a part of the military."

However, one should not reproach Arrian with addiction. On one occasion, he uses the testimony of Aristobulus to expose Ptolemy. Ptolemy describes at length what difficulties he overcame in order to catch the fleeing Bessus on the orders of Alxandr, and Aristobulus says that Persian commanders brought Bessus to Ptolemy, “they handed him over to Alexander naked and wearing a collar”. Where Aristobulus got such information, we do not know, but in itself this simpler story is quite plausible.

If, therefore, Ptolemy as a source looms rather definitely, then the features of Aristobulus' narrative are less clear. He loved geographical excursions, willingly talked about miraculous signs and, in general, about supernatural phenomena. So, he tells in detail about a Syrian woman who was with Alexander, "possessed by a deity", warning him of impending disasters, and also dwells in detail on the "sign" before Alexander's last illness. Obviously, there was not a word about this in the "diaries", otherwise Arrian would not have specifically referred to Aristobulus. In general, he loved stories about the miraculous. This passion of Aristobulus is well illustrated by the rationale why Alexander called the island he met on the way Ikarov, or an episode with a sailor who accidentally donned Alexander's tiara. Apparently, Aristobulus was not so much interested in the fate of the sailor as in the fact that this incident was also used as a "sign" foreshadowing the death of Alexander, and Seleucus the "great kingdom". That Aristobulus was familiar with the correspondence of his superior is evident from the information he had on the case of Darius. Yes, perhaps, and the message about the plan of Darius, intercepted by Alexander, characterizes Aristobulus as a person who knew about the correspondence of the Macedonian. There was not a word about this in the "diaries", and Ptolemy wrote nothing about this document. Sometimes the testimony of Aristobulus does not speak in favor of the activities of Alexander. So, according to him, a significant part of the troops sent against the Scythians died, falling into an ambush arranged by the Scythians. Ptolemy apparently did not mention this episode. It is possible that Aristobulus, carried away by the story, said what he could not know. The story of the capture of the "Seventh City" in Scythia also speaks not in favor of Alexander. Arrian writes: “... according to Ptolemy, the inhabitants surrendered themselves; Aristobulus says that he too was taken by storm and that they killed everyone who was captured there. Ptolemy says that Alexander distributed people to his soldiers and ordered them to keep them in chains until he leaves this country: let no one of the participants in the uprising remain. " It is possible that Ptolemy in his writings tended to soften the information about the cruelty of Alexander. Where Arrian has preserved for us the conflicting testimonies of Aristobulus and Ptolimus, the more common sense and greater awareness of the latter are beyond doubt. Take, for example, the description of the battle with Pora's son. The matter concerns the crossing of the Hydasp. Aristobulus says that Porus had 60 chariots at his disposal, allotted to him by his father to meet Alexander, and that Por gave Alexander the opportunity to cross the river. Arrian points out that according to other stories Por fought with Alexander at the landing site and that Por arrived with a large army. Ptolsmsy, finally, also pointing out the presence of a large army, spoke so convincingly about the clash between Porus and the Macedonian king that Arrian followed only his message. From the repeated mentions of Arrian that he only follows the testimony of Aristobulus and Ptolemy, it clearly follows that if these two sources are not referenced, then he follows the versions of other writers about whom we know nothing. Sometimes the lack of evidence of Ptolemy and Aristobulus compel Arrian to speak out on the basis of his own experience. Arrian found a reference to the fact that the Romans sent an embassy to Alexander, already famous for his conquests, and that Alexander predicted his future power to Rome. “I report this as an event that is not absolutely certain, but also not entirely improbable. However, it should be said that none of the Romans mentions this embassy to Alexander and neither Ptolemy, son of Lagus, nor Aristobulus, Alexander's historians, whom I most trust, write about it. True, here Arrian, informing about this embassy, names the names of the authors: these are Aristus and Asclepiades. Diodorus, reflecting the version, reports that embassies were drawn to Alexander from everyone who inhabited the northern coast of the Mediterranean Sea and up to the Pillars of Hercules, that is, the Celts and Iberians. Despite the fact that Arrian's affection for Rome could have forced him to support these flattering information for Rome, he rejects them. Asclepiades is known only from this place of Arrian. And we know Arista from Strabo, who says that he was from the island of Salamis and lived later than Aristobulus.

Sometimes Arrian narrates events that his main sources do not mention; they themselves raised doubts about the credibility. In these cases, the reference to the lack of relevant information from Aristobulus and Ptolemus means that Arrian does not recognize these stories. These reports include stories about a solemn procession organized by Alexander allegedly through Karmania: Alexander supposedly reclined on two carpets joined together and, accompanied by soldiers, accompanied by soldiers, walked to the sound of a flute in this magnificent procession, called "triumph", in imitation of the Bacchic retinue of the god Dionysus. Arrian expresses doubt about this: “Some writers have a story that, in my opinion, does not deserve trust ... However, neither Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, nor Aristobulus, the son of Aristobulus, write about this, and in general no one whose testimony about this could be believed. " Arrian, apparently, also rejects the story that Atropat, satrap of Media, brought to Alexander a hundred women-Amazons, that Alexander ordered to remove them from the army and allegedly let the queen of the Amazons know that he would come to her, because he wants to have from her children. "About all this," says Arrian, "there is not a word in either Aristobulus or Ptolemy, in general, not a single writer whose story about such an exceptional event could be believed." There are other differences between Aristobulus and Ptolemy, which are explained by the better knowledge of Ptolemy. These include, for example, information about Alexander's march with troops across the desert. Ptolemy claims that two serpents, endowed with a voice, appeared in front of the army. Aristobulus speaks of two crows flying in front of the army. Arrian states that Aristobulus's story is the usual version. He admits that he allows divine help to Alexander: this is plausible in itself, if you trace the success of this commander. But the inconsistency of these versions casts doubt on the accuracy of the information. Most likely, it should be considered that Ptolemy tells a legend that arose on the territory of Egypt, in the Egyptian camp. In essence, of course, the version of the majority, which Aristobulus also adheres to, deserves preference, since according to the stories of travelers, crows and birds of prey are often found in the desert, and this is considered a sign of the proximity of sources. Arrian also read the episode about his return to Egypt in two readings: Aristobulus says that Alexander returned to Egypt by the same road that he left, and Ptolemy says that he went the other way to Memphis. And here the version of Ptolemy is the best, since he learned all the legends about Alexander and his visit to Memphis from Egyptian sources. Here, by the way, it should be said that for all the realism of the stories of Ptolim about Alexander, they have mystical and religious elements. Religious rituals were necessary for the commander Alexander in order to influence the army, which had to believe that the gods treat him favorably. Hence, Alexander's repeated appeals to oracles and dream diviners, references to beliefs to signs. The presence of a specialist in the interpretation of dreams and omens in Alexander's retinue should be considered an indisputable fact. The Greeks and other members of Alexander's huge army believed in their mass in dreams. And since the campaign, with its dangers, instilled in the soldiers fears for life, divination of dreams and the interpretation of omens in such a framework as Arrian tells about it, were in the order of things. In addition, the campaign itself dictated the need to appeal to the help of the gods: sacrifices were previously required, sacred vows were given to the gods; for a successful outcome, the petitioners promised the gods some kind of "reward", a token of gratitude. Numerous inscriptions that have come down to us testify to the fear of waterways, travel and crossings. Numerous tombstones testify to how many travelers died in the waves of the seas. Even a simple trip from Alexandria to Italy was seen as a "great danger." In the harbor of the city of Alexandria, by the support of a prominent politician, a friend of Ptolemy II, the famous Far Lighthouse was built, which was supposed to provide entry to the harbor for those who traveled across the seas; it was dedicated to the “gods-saviors,” that is, to all those gods who were asked for salvation by the seafarers. When Alexander crossed with an army across Istria, he "destroyed the city and on the banks of Istra sacrificed to Zeus the Savior, Hercules and Istra himself for allowing him to cross." Here Zeus is called the Savior: this, of course, is his most widespread cult nickname; Hercules is named as the legendary ancestor of Alexander, and Istres is the personified name of the river Istres, the god of Istres. Alexander's observance of other religious rites - whether in the interests of the campaign or for personal - was not discussed by Ptolemy.

Neither Ctesias, nor Hecateus, nor Herodotus, nor Xenophon can be considered the sources of Arrian. Arrian placed high Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a prominent scholar (3rd century BC), one of the leaders of the famous library in Alexandria. He considered him a great expert on the geography of India, as well as Megasthenes (4th century BC) and Nearchus, the naval commander of Alexander, and used all these writers when creating his "Indian history" ("Indica"). With all due respect to Eratosthenes, Arrian does not take all his testimony on faith. “As for me,” he writes, “I don’t agree in everything with the Cyrenean Eratosthenes, according to whom the stories of the Macedonians about what was done by the gods were intended only to flatter Alexandra and exalt him beyond measure.” Arrian also had great confidence in Megasthenes. In his work, he prefers to use the evidence of researchers who personally observed the events and objects about which they write. And Arrian knows about Megasthenes that he knows India well because he lived with Siberia, the satrap of Arachosia, and often visited the Indian king Sandrakott.

This short list is by no means exhaustive of Arrian's sources. We can say especially little about those writers to whom he refers, but whom he does not mention by name. And there were a lot of them. An instructive example is Arrian's account of the capital city of Sardanapalus. Its content is as follows: Alexander left Tarsus and arrived in the city of Anchial, which, according to legend, was founded by the Assyrian Sardanapalus. Alexander's attention was attracted by the gravestone of Sardanapalus, depicted in full growth. His hands were folded in the way they usually fold when clapping their hands. There was an inscription in the Assyrian language under the monument. “The Assyrians said they were verses.” Further, Arrian conveys the content of the inscription, in which Sardanapalus proudly reports how he built the cities of Anchial and Tarsus on the same day, and invites travelers to eat, drink and play. "Everything else in life is not worth it": a hint of that sound. which is emitted by clapping palms. Sardanapalus is not a historically identified person. In Greek literature, he appears as a person who devoted his whole life to excessive pleasures. He believed that life is short, therefore it is necessary to hurry up to live in order not to miss any pleasures. In addition to pleasures, there is nothing valuable in life. A number of writers who spoke about Sardanapalus interpreted the gesture of the Assyrian king not as an applause, but as a click, which, with its brief sound, symbolized the worthlessness, frailty of all life. But the text we are interested in certainly speaks of applause, and Arrian seems to have linked this gesture with an invitation to have fun. Archaeological excavations in these places and in our time have discovered figures with their hands folded on their stomachs, a gesture that the one who saw could not interpret as a click. Callisthenes (fragment 32) says that Sardanapalus was depicted with his hands raised high above his head, as if for a click. Plutarch adds that the pose of the Assyrian king depicted a "barbaric dance", his hands were raised above his head. The poems that were supposedly on this monument are transmitted in a variety of ways. And only Callisthenes, instead of the word "amuse yourself," uses the indecent expression that Arrian alludes to. For some Greek writers, the words of the inscription are given in poetic form. Apparently, in Alexander's retinue they knew the Greek legend about "Sardanapalus". It has been passed down from writer to writer since Herodotus (II.150). When they saw the statue, they identified it as a depiction of this classic life-burner. The gesture of this statue - hands folded on the stomach - they tried to reconcile with the words of Greek verses. It is unlikely that anyone from Alexander's retinue was able to read these words. Where Arrian got the information about this episode is hard to say. Athenaeus refers to Aristobulus, who, in words that are extremely close, speaks of this statue (a quote from Aristobulus by Athenaeus, literally). However, the gesture according to Aristobulus is a click gesture made with one hand ("brought the fingers of his right hand together as if to click"), Arrian changed the description of the gesture in his own way and thus created a version of applause. The history of Greek poetry is very difficult to reconstruct: it does not apply to us. Thus, we have restored yet another testimony of Aristobulus, the lover of deviations from the course of the story and lover of legends. In addition, we were convinced that Arrian, retelling the information of the sources, was not always, apparently, accurate.

Alexander's troops

The organizational forms of Alexander's army were largely inherited by him from Philip. However, during the grandiose, long-term movement of the troops to the east, significant changes took place in the structure of the troops, made by Alexander or his assistants as needed or according to the model of Persian customs, which Alexander creatively perceived in order to raise the combat capability of the Macedonian army. As the Macedonians moved eastward, the number of Macedonians became less and less (due to losses in battles), so that, without significant involvement of the native population, Alexander's military forces were clearly insufficient. The involvement of local residents in the army resulted in the equalization of the rights of the Macedonians and Persians who participated in the campaign. The organizational forms of the army of Alexander the Great were determined by the traditions of those distant times of the "Homeric" era, when the military forces were led by the "king" and his retinue. In the troops of Philip and his heir, "friends" - members of the squad - were called "getters". In other parts of the ancient world, they were called in every language by terms meaning "friends." But in general, all officials close to the tsar were designated as getters. This term among the Macedonians was identical to the term of the Homeric epic. Among the rest of the Greeks, it meant a rather narrow, vicious circle of the clan nobility. Traditions of deep antiquity sanctified the "council of getters", which solved the most important issues in the life of the state. But it must be honored that Philip involved non-Macedonians in his military forces. In such a motley, mixed army, the greatest confidence was, of course, endowed with the Macedonian warriors and their commanders - the getters. Initially, the nobility, that is, the getters who were close to the king, were the commanders of the cavalry. The cavalry in the Macedonian army broke up into "silts". There were seven silts that bore the names of the regions from which they were drawn. The eighth silt was called "royal". From the names of the silt by cities and regions, it can be concluded that the army was recruited on a territorial basis. Only the eighth silt was created according to a different principle and made up something like a royal horse guard. The supreme command belonged to the "hipparchus" - the chief of the cavalry. The enormous distances covered by the Macedonian army during the march to the east, the excessive distance from its Macedonian base, the creation of a vast multi-tribal empire at the expense of the conquered lands - all this forced Alexander to replenish the ranks of the mounted troops with soldiers from other nationalities and abandon the territorial nicknames silt. Instead of this, hipparchies are introduced, the divisions of which are oozes. The term "getters", in addition to cavalry, applies to other types of troops. Along with the cavalry of the getters, the Macedonian army also had infantry of noble, that is, Macedonian, origin - it was the "infantry of getters". It was sometimes called "phalanx" by the type of construction. The original composition of this infantry was later replenished with soldiers of non-Macedonian origin. The armament was heavy: a helmet, shield, greaves and the so-called "sarissa", that is, such a large spear that had to be held with both hands; it served to strike enemy infantry. The foot army was divided into regiments. The initial principle of recruitment for the foot regiments was territorial: apparently, the princes brought their soldiers from the regions headed by them. The number of soldiers that made up one regiment was hardly regulated. The infantry regiments were divided into "suckers", headed by the leaders of the suckers, or "suckers". The suckers were divided into "decades" under the command of "decadarchs". Decade literally means "ten", but this name already in the time of interest to us had a purely conventional meaning. A special group of foot troops is formed by "shield-bearers". The exact meaning of this term is unclear. There are many interpretations: some believe that warriors were called shield-bearers, to the obligatory armament of which the shield belongs, in contrast to those military units that did not wear a shield; others think that the shield bearers wore shields of a particular shape or size; still others define them as a special part of the army, consisting of the king's squires. Some of the shield-bearers make up the so-called “agema”. Just as in the cavalry there was a royal mud, in the foot units there was a "royal age", or age of the Macedonians. This was a select group of infantrymen.

In the Macedonian troops, there is a great variety of unit names, indicating that the recruitment was made in different ways. They were named after the type of weapon, ethnicity and some other characteristics. So, foreigners were sometimes simply called according to their tribal composition. In the army of Alexander there were, for example, Thracian horsemen, foot Thracians. The Agrians played a special role. They are constantly in the composition of light attacking units armed with darts. Their leader Langar was in friendship with Alexander, and before him with Philip. They were usually located on the flanks. As part of the Macedonian troops were also Thessalian horsemen, horsemen-sarissa, that is, armed with long and heavy spears sarissa. There were cavalry units called "runners" or "predecessors", their task is not entirely clear. They often talk about peon-bsguns. In the army of Alexander, some tribal names also meant a special kind of army, armed in its own way, specially built, acting with its own methods. Probably so by the Bylospaeons, Agrians, Thracians and other tribes. An innovation of the Hellenistic time was the introduction of not only courtiers, but also military ranks. The tsar's closest circle was made up of "bodyguards", that is, trusted people who were charged with the duty of protecting the tsar's inviolability. During the campaign and in a combat situation, the composition of this encirclement underwent changes and its functions changed significantly. Under the Persian kings and princes, court customs had much in common with the customs of the Macedonian court. Therefore, a number of titles that are considered Macedonian are in fact of Asian origin. It is possible that not only the Macedonians knew "friends" in the circle of the king, but also other, non-European tribes. That Alexander borrowed a number of titles from persons, Arrian tells about it.

According to the Persian model, the title of "relatives" of the king was introduced. Thus, one of the honored cavalry commanders of the “friends” reminded Alexander of the reason for the discontent of the Macedonians: “The Macedonians are saddened by the fact that you have already become related to some Persians: the Persians are called“ relatives ”of Alexander and kiss you; but none of the Macedonians have tasted this honor. " That this was a Persian custom is confirmed by other writers. In the Hellenistic armies from the time of Alexander the title appeared - "equal in dignity". Completely this title reads: "equal to the king's relatives in dignity." This primordially Persian title expands the circle of the king's relatives: by their nobility they equate people who were not related to the king. The “descendants” made up peculiar detachments: “Satraps came to him from new cities and conquered lands; with them came about 30,000 young men, who entered the age about which Alexander said that they were 'descendants'. " These were young people whom Alexander ordered to educate in the Macedonian spirit to replenish the army.

Arrian's relationship to Alexander

Arrian sees in Alexander an exceptionally outstanding political and military figure. As a specialist, he is attracted by the descriptions of Alexander's preparations for sieges, the conduct of sieges, the battle formations of troops and the use of various types of armed forces in battle. He writes not only a biography of his hero, but also writes down all the affairs of Alexander the commander. “There is no other person who - alone - would have done so many such things; no one, neither the Hellenes, nor the barbarians, can be compared with him in the size and greatness of the deed. " Despite such a positive review, Arrian is far from not noticing the negative aspects of the Macedonian commander and not blaming him. He summarizes his critical attitude towards Alexander in the last parts of his work. Arrian notes that Alexander was overly fond of praise. We see this throughout the story. Objection, disagreement with him drove him to disgusting displays of irascibility.

Arrian undoubtedly sympathizes with the courage of Callisthenes, who criticizes Alexander's addiction to superhuman honors, his deviation from Macedonian and common Greek customs. Even if in the relevant parts of the story Arrian does not sharply oppose such behavior of his hero, the very fact that he talks in great detail about the indignation of Callisthenes and other Macedonians and Greeks testifies that in the depths of his soul he sympathizes with the dissatisfied. And at the end of the work, Arrian seeks to explain Alexander's misdeeds. I must say that these explanations are very similar to the justification. He explains most of the misdeeds of Alexander's youth, passion for luck, servility of the environment. The erection of a kind to the gods was necessary for Alexander in order for the royal power in the eyes of his subjects to be religiously sanctioned. In order to somehow justify its existence, Alexander had to justify it by its divine origin, to show that it is simply a continuation of the royal power of the "Homeric" era. Arrian should have scourged such delusion of Alexander, insist on the far-fetched descent from divine ancestors. But instead, hushing up this fiction, offensive to the Greeks, he deduced the right of Alexander to royal power from the greatness of his activities. He urges readers to emphasize less the reprehensible side of his activities, and more to recognize the historical validity of his merits. Alexander, as Arrian reasons, greatly lessens his misdeeds by admitting them. The indulgence of the environment, expressed in admiration for his actions, is also seen in the interpretation of dreams and predictions; they say, even in the interests of the Macedonians. If the Greeks (page with the picture - Smolyanin) and the Macedonians felt offended by the fact that Alexander introduced Persian customs, then this is a misunderstanding: Arrian saw in this mainly Alexander's desire to become more understandable and closer to the Persian people. In addition, in this way he wanted to curb the arrogance of the victorious Macedonians. Apparently, Arrian, with his admiration for Alexander, paid tribute to the atmosphere of imperial Rome, the ruling elite of which unconditionally approved of Alexander's actions. Arrian seems to be afraid of this and in the last words of his work explains that he scolds the deeds of the Macedonian only out of striving for the truth and wanting to benefit the readers.

Arrian's attitude to sources is curious. He prefers evidence that logically, consistently, without embellishment sets out the activities of Alexander. If he has several conflicting sources at his disposal, he, for the sake of amusement, often cites even statements that cannot be trusted, expresses his disapproval.

Arrian wrote in the II imperial century, that is, in the era of the so-called "second sophistry", when rhetoric-reciters appeared, who created a particularly luxurious style with rhetorical figures, rhythmic prose and sometimes pompous speech that repulses the reader. Arrian's greatest praise is that he is far from this lack of narrative literature. His only rhetorical effects were brilliantly written speeches. It cannot be assumed that Arrian found them at Aristobulus or Ptolemy. He probably composed them himself, based on the situation described. If these speeches did not exist, then they could have been uttered by those persons to whom Arrian attributed them. This was the literary style of the ancients. So wrote Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, so wrote Caesar and many others. Some speeches cannot be read without emotion. Such speeches (sometimes even dialogues) include the speech of Parmenion and Alexander's answer regarding the crossing of the Granicus River, Alexander's speech about the campaign against Egypt, Callisthenes's speech about his mission under Alexander and the behavior of the latter. In the form of a direct speech, the order that Alexander gave to Craterus, Ptolemy, is set forth.

It is especially necessary to highlight the speech of Alexander to the military leaders, in which he sought to raise the mood of the army. This speech broadly covers the achievements of Alexander's army - its conquests and strategic position. Especially interesting is the answer of the old honored warrior Ken. In it, Arrian, perhaps not willingly, sets out through the mouth of an orator one of the main reasons for the collapse of Alexander's campaign. Ken, in a modest sober manner, reminds Alexander of the great losses incurred by the army over the past years of the campaign: "You can see for yourself how many Macedonians and Hellenes left with you and how many of us are left." Many soldiers dropped out when the inhabitants of Thessaly no longer wanted to "bear the burden of war and campaigns." Alexander let them go home. The Greeks were settled in the new cities founded by Alexander (not all remained there voluntarily). Many people died in the battles. Those who were incapable of their age and state of health to continue the campaign "scattered in some places in Asia." Many people died from disease. These and other reasons significantly undermined the fighting efficiency of the army. Hence the agonizing homesickness.

Among other speeches, Alexander's address to the army after the execution of 13 Macedonians should be noted. He spoke with praises to Philip, the father, pointed out the growth of culture among the Macedonians, spoke in detail about how they gained power over Hellas. Alexander emphasized his services to the common cause, his generosity and pointed to the great demobilization of the troops. Some of these speeches are exemplary in public speaking.

It should also be noted moralizing, moralizing. It also belongs to the style of writers - contemporaries of Arrian. But Arrian has very few of them. Among them, one should especially pay attention to the praise of moderation, to the ability to restrain oneself. “So the ability to control oneself and to bridle oneself inspires respect even to enemies”; "Nothing gives a person happiness if this person, doing what seems to be great things, does not have at the same time the ability to restrain himself." When Arrian says that Alexander, enraged by the behavior of Klytus, is killing him, he quite sharply reproaches Alexander: “I strongly reproach Klytus for his impudent behavior with the king; Alexander I regret in this trouble; he discovered that he was at the mercy of two vices, namely, anger and drunkenness - a rational person should not be at the mercy of even one of them. " These were the flaws that Arrian discovered in Alexander's behavior. True, in addition to those indicated, Arrian also in other places in his work expresses his moral principles regarding a variety of issues. So, he says that Alexander, seeing the daughter of Oxyartes, Roxanne, "fell in love with her." But Alexander “did not want to offend the captive and considered her worthy of the name of a wife ... He… managed to restrain himself, although he was young and was at the height of happiness when people allow themselves everything. He treated the woman with respect and pity; showed great composure and an appropriate desire for good fame. " Arrian highly appreciated the bravery of Alexander, or rather, the ideal of bravery that Alexander's contemporaries associated with the name of the Macedonian. When one day Parmenion began to persuade Alexander to attack the Persians at night, when they did not expect any attack, Alexander supposedly replied "that Alexander is ashamed to steal victory: he should win openly, without tricks." Although these words, as everyone understands, could not be sincere (we see that Alexander used any tricks, any deception, seeking victory), the Macedonian also valued courage in his enemies. This is evidenced by his attitude towards the son of King Porus. He, persuading the troops to invade the Persian possessions, even resorted to a cunning slogan that opposes the Persians as an avenger for their atrocities against the Greeks. Arrian quite rightly notes the falsity of this propaganda phrase. Alexander motivated his enmity to the Persians before Parmenion by the fact that he wanted to punish the Persians for the fact that, having invaded Hellas, they destroyed Athens and burned the temples; for the great evil inflicted on the Hellenes, they are now responsible. According to Arrian, however, Alexander was acting recklessly, and there was no punishment for the ancient Persians. Alexander did not like objections, just as he did not like all those who thought differently than he did.

International relations under Alexander the Great

The relationship between states in ancient times was extremely primitive. Alien and enemy were synonymous. Only on the basis of a special agreement could a stranger or strangers acquire the right to an independent existence. This independence was designated by the term "autonomy", which literally meant "the use of their own laws." Arrian calls this political term, for example, the position of the Mallas - "an independent Indian tribe." Modern scholars suggest that such tribes were not under the centralized authority of any princes, but lived in fortified villages (Arrian calls them cities). There were many such fortified places. They fiercely resisted and had great armed force. The same "autonomous" peoples were, according to Arrian, the Oxydraks. The Mallahs were in alliance with them, and the conquest of the Mallas by the troops of Alexander entailed the surrender of the land and population to Alexander, who set the conditions for surrender and set Philip over them as satrap. Alexander met such autonomous tribes on the way in large numbers: Abastans, Sogds, Osadii, Orits and others. Whether these tribes had any semblance of state formation or not, it is difficult to say yet. Thus, Arrian claims that the Sogdians had a royal capital. We have given here this list of tribes, not intending to go into questions of their social structure. It is very characteristic of Alexander's view that he could expose these tribes to defeat for the mere fact that they did not send him signs of obedience. Thus, the Oxydraks, who came to negotiate with Alexander, “brought gifts that are considered the most honorable among the Indians, and declared that they and their tribe surrendered to Alexander. They had made a mistake, they declared, by not appearing to him earlier, but this mistake deserves pardon. They crave, like others, and even more than others, freedom and independence (ie, autonomy, - OK) ... If Alexander wants ..., they will accept the satrap, whom he will appoint, and will pay the tribute that he will appoint ” ... From these words, it should be concluded that the Oxydraks, losing their "autonomy", will not become a state. In the loss of autonomy, they see the need to submit to the supreme power of Tsar Alexander, to pay tribute to him. They regard the satrap appointed by Alexander as his governor. Of course, this is also associated with a stronger organized unification of separate fortified points, which for most of the listed tribes existed more or less independently of each other. So, such associations of tribes or states acquired the right to exist only when they showed their obedience by sending "gifts". A very eloquent example is represented by relations with Musikan.

Alexander went to his region, having learned about her riches, “... meanwhile, Musikan did not come out to meet him with expressions of obedience for himself and for his country, did not send ambassadors to conclude friendship, he himself did not send any gifts befitting a great king, and nothing I asked Alexander. " Subsequently, however, Musikan went out to meet Alexander with gifts, brought elephants, among other things, as a gift, repented of his behavior, gave himself and his people to Alexander's rule. Alexander liked it. He left him power over the country, but fortified the Kremlin in the city and placed a garrison in the Kremlin to monitor the surrounding tribes. From this example - and Arrian has several similar examples - we learn that the first step in gaining recognition from Alexander was to send gifts of appropriate volume and decent value. These gifts were to be brought either by ambassadors or specially authorized persons from the nobility, or, as in the example of autonomous tribal associations, by representatives of "cities" and other authorities. If the gifts and accompanying speeches or letters turned out to be pleasing to Alexander, it was possible to conclude an agreement of "friendship" with the corresponding state. This "friendship" did not exclude nevertheless the entry of Alexander's soldiers into the city and using it as a strategic point for observing the neighboring conquered or still unconquered tribes. From the above considerations, it is clear that the conclusion of "friendship" (something like the recognition of the state de jure in the modern sense of the word) already meant a certain refusal of independence (tribute, the supply of military forces, the admission of the garrison to their territories, etc.). Arrian has many indications of such agreements: the Celts sought "friendship" from Alexander, and he "gave them and took guarantees from them." Paphlagonia sends an embassy to him, surrenders to all the people and comes to an agreement with them. Among the conditions of such an "agreement" very often in the first place is the obligation to participate in the hostilities of Alexander. Sometimes the most important condition for joint military operations served as the content of a special treaty, which Alexander either concluded separately or simultaneously with the treaty of "friendship". When the Celts approached Alexander through the messengers, Alexander concluded a treaty of "friendship" and joint military action with them. Alexander gave a favorable response to the Scythian ambassadors, and with Farasman he concluded an alliance of "friendship" and joint military actions. Apparently, this Hellenistic legal practice was inherited by Roman international law. Any state, any tribe or tribal association only in that case was recognized as "autonomously" existing if it consisted of "friendship" with the Romans, that is, it was called a "friend" of the Romans.

Organization of the territories conquered by Alexander

As a rule, Alexander the Great, conquering the former Persian territories, annexed them to his state without changing the state apparatus of his predecessors, that is, the Persian kings. The entire Persian monarchy fell apart into satrapies, that is, territorial divisions headed by satraps. Under Daria, Bess was a satrap, as his relative. He was in charge of all state affairs of the province entrusted to him. Alexander had a tendency, while preserving the institution of satraps, to replace the Persian satraps with trusted people from his circle. But the forced caution forced Alexander in one form or another to provide a double supreme principle. Satraps, as commanders of large territories, also headed huge military forces, their main functions were military. Therefore, it was necessary to strictly limit their military functions, since they could become dangerous for Alexander. The competence of the satrap was significantly limited, if only by the fact that other officials stood at the head of the cities that were part of the satrapy, as the chiefs of fortresses and significant detachments located in them, called "strategists". They were directly subordinate to Alexander. Frurarchs were also commandants of the garrisons of the fortresses. There is sometimes confusion in Arrian's account. Instead of the title "satrap", he uses the title "hyparch", although these names do not coincide in meaning. While the satrap is the ruler of the entire province, the hyparch is only the head of a part of the province. So, Asklepiodorus, the son of Evnik, was the satrap-ruler of all Syria. He received this appointment instead of Arimma, who, according to Alexander, could not cope with this task previously assigned to him: he was "too sluggish to prepare everything that was ordered to him to prepare for the army heading inland." From these words we can conclude that sometimes served as the basis for the removal of a satrap. Elsewhere, we learn that the same Asklspiodorus, as a hyparch, ruled only part of Syria, while Bessus was a satrap of all Syria. An interesting message is about the measures taken by Alexander after the capture of Babylon: “He made Mazei the Satrap of Babylon; he entrusted the command of the army left to Mazei to Apollodorus of Amphipolis, and the collection of taxes to Asklepiodorus, the son of Philo. " We see with what caution Alexander makes sure that too much power is not concentrated in the hands of Mazey. However, a little further, this same Mazey is called hyparch. Also, Arrian erroneously calls Sisikotta the satrap of the Assaken, and the satrap Nikanor - the hyparch. Obviously, Alexander did not appoint Samba as a satrap of the mountain Indians, but only as a hyparch. Satraps were not always appointed from the Macedonians: sometimes Alexander appointed natives of Asia to this post if they voluntarily moved to his court. He did the same, for example, in relation to Arsak, Frataphern and a number of others. Only a stormy internal struggle in the provinces of Asia, in which the Asiatic satraps played a hostile role to Alexander, forced him to strictly choose the satraps from among the Macedonian military leaders. Alexander sometimes appointed Giparchs from local princes, such as Arsak, subordinate to King Abisar. A special position was in Egypt, where Alexander carefully preserved the forms of government inherited from the Persians. At the head of this country were directly subordinate to Tsar Alexander Petisius and Doloasp, the first undoubtedly an Egyptian. Later, Cleomenes and Apollodorus from the well-known circle of Alexander the Great acted alongside them to control their activities. The entire state, or rather the province of Egypt, was divided into nomes, which were headed by nomarchs, that is, the chiefs of the nomes. They were originally Egyptians. However, in the future, a strategist from the Macedonians or Hellenes stood next to the nomarch. Previously, as strategists in Asia, they commanded the military units of the nome, and later they lost their military functions and turned into purely administrative rulers of the nomes.

After Alexander's death, when his legitimate heir stood at the head of the Macedonian monarchy, and Ptolemy, son of Lag, became a satrap of Egypt. On this evolution of state power in Egypt, one can study the structure and Asian provinces of the Alexander monarchy. Obviously, the "nomarchs" of the Indian countries, preserved by Arrian, also headed the out-of-town territory with its population, as in Egypt. Elucidation of these issues is hampered by the paucity of evidence. Some of the conquered rulers retained their royal title and at the same time some semblance of autonomous existence, such as Taxil.

Fleet Alexander and Nearchus

Our acquaintance with the circle of Alexander the Great's assistants, to whom Arrian will attach great importance, would be incomplete without mentioning the commander of his fleet Nearchus.

The warships at the disposal of the Macedonian conqueror were small and mainly intended for operation on rivers. Only occasionally, and even then at a later time, were ships built in Greece of a larger size, with a large tonnage for the carriage of goods across the Mediterranean Sea, about the sailing conditions in which the Greeks had good knowledge.

During his military campaigns, Alexander needed a fleet of a different type, capable of overcoming the unknown expanses of the seas washing the territories from the south along which his troops were moving. The creation of such a fleet was entrusted to the son of Androtim, a friend of Alexander's youth, Nearchus.

The fleet preparing for such a long journey was to consist of more stable ships. On the way, he had to replenish food supplies, drinking water, recruit a crew as needed, find a forest for repair. To accomplish such a grandiose task, it was necessary to have a coastal voyage map indicating the distances between individual sites, a description of these sites, etc. But all this was not. The main thing that the leader of such a fleet needed was courage, management, a number of theoretical knowledge.

Nearchus was born in 360 BC. e. on the island of Crete, in the city of Lato. Crete was renowned for its experienced sailors. The very name "Nearchus" can indicate belonging to the circle of sailors, since it means "the chief of the ship." Alexander managed to interest him in the plan of a march to the east. They were once united by common plans for an uprising against Tsar Philip. True, Nearchus's career began with land service, he was the governor of the king in Lycia and Pamphylia in 334. But the constant use of Nearchus to carry out various state and military orders brought him closer to Alexander.

Nearchus was instructed to collect and repair the river fleet, which he began to command in 326. Alexander, together with Nearchus, first used the tactics of joint action of the ground forces with the fleet. During the campaign, they lost contact with each other for a long time. Such parting was interrupted by meetings of an sometimes unexpected character, to which Alexander gave scope to great festivities. Apart from personal relationships, the meeting was a great joy, as it meant that the fleet was unharmed and the connection with the sea was not broken. Alexander's warriors, represented by the sailors from the fleet's crew, welcomed the connection with their homeland.

From the writings of Nearchus, only isolated excerpts have come down to us, giving reason to assume that he kept a ship's log, which served as a source for Arrnan when writing a treatise on a trip to India. In this journal Nearchus wrote about those deeds and events that he himself witnessed. His knowledge was extremely extensive, acquired by practical activity. He had to solve a variety of issues related to the phenomena of ebb and flow, with the peculiarities of maritime navigation, etc. Along the way, the study of the natural conditions of the coast of the seas was carried out, which contributed to a significant expansion of the botanical and zoological knowledge of the Greeks. During military expeditions, Nsarch had the opportunity to get acquainted with various tribes, their customs, laws. His observations, described in the logbook, helped to dispel various inventions about the fabulous creatures that supposedly lived in Asia.

This edition of the work of Arrian "The Campaign of Alexander" will undoubtedly help the study of the Hellenistic era, as well as the study of the history of those states that were temporarily part of the artificial association called "the monarchy of Alexander the Great."

We see how Alexander's deeply thought-out campaign, combining land and sea operations, collapsed, because the participants in this campaign realized its aimlessness and disaster and forced the leaders to stop it. On the other hand, the local tribes, which Alexander underestimated, are increasingly acting as strong opponents: with the increasing weakening of Alexander's troops, they managed to force him to stop and roll back.

There is more reading in Alexander's Campaign by Arrian than the authors wanted to say.