Though he had modest origins, Eumenes had served as secretary to Alexander, and his father Philip II before him, and acquired authority and prestige through his control of the conquerors’ intelligence and correspondence. His aristocratic opponents sought Eumenes’ death almost from the off, but Eumenes prevailed. Yet with the death in 319 BC of Antipater, the elderly steady hand entrusted by Alexander to rule in Europe, the general Antigonus saw an opportunity to take control of the empire himself. It set him on a direct path to confrontation with Eumenes.

Besieged at Nora

In 319 BC Eumenes had been defeated by Antigonus at the Battle of Orkynia in Cappadocia, after which he had retreated and taken refuge in a virtually impregnable stronghold called Nora. Recognising Eumenes’ proven ability to command, Antigonus is supposed to have made an offer to Eumenes to instate him as one of his own officers. Eumenes may have sought better terms and in any case would have been well supplied to wait it out. Soon the death of Antipater would throw his opponents’ plans into disarray.

1810 depictions of ancient siege warfare.

Image Credit: New York Public Library / Public Domain

But Antigonus was not the only powerful Macedonian who desired Eumenes as an ally. Back in Macedonia, Antipater’s successor, Polyperchon was also eyeing his support. At that time, Polyperchon’s position was in jeopardy. Antipater’s son Cassander, furious at not being labelled his father’s successor, had started gathering an army to confront Polyperchon. He sailed over to Asia Minor, to petition Antigonus.

Antigonus agreed to Cassander’s offer of an alliance. Polyperchon was now desperate. Antigonus was then the most powerful commander in the empire, with an army of almost 70,000 men. Polyperchon looked to Eumenes.

Kings’ General

Polyperchon sent a messenger to Eumenes in Cappadocia with an irresistible offer. If he were to break with Antigonus, the new regent offered Eumenes the title of ‘King’s General’ in Asia. Polyperchon offered him access to the vast royal treasury at Cyinda and even more auspiciously, command of the Silver Shields, Alexander the Great’s veteran Macedonian infantry guarding the treasury.

Eumenes abruptly headed east to Cyinda. There, as promised, he gained access to the royal treasury and the formidable Silver Shields. Eumenes’ war with Antigonus was back on.

The war re-starts

Antigonus was furious. Thanks to Polyperchon’s offer, he now had a new great threat in the east. Abruptly, his plans to invade Macedonia were put on hold and gathering a large army, he headed east once more in pursuit of the Cardian. Yet by the time he reached Syria, Eumenes had already departed. He had headed further to the east, keen to enlist the aid of the eastern governors against Antigonus.

Near Susa, Eumenes met with many of these satraps, already united with their armies. Most notable among these men was the Macedonian Peucestas, a former bodyguard of Alexander, friend to Eumenes and the governor of Persia. There was also Eudamus, who had come from India with a large force of elephants.

The Battle of the Coprates River, 317 BC

Meanwhile, Antigonus received reinforcements at Babylon from two fellow Macedonian generals, Seleucus and Peithon, and went in hot pursuit of Eumenes. In the summer of 317 BC, their forces clashed on the eastern bank of the Coprates River, now known as the Dez River in Iran. While Antigonus’ forces were in the midst of crossing, Eumenes led 4,000 infantry and 1,300 cavalry towards the river, and charged.

The forces of Antigonus that had reached the other side, some 6,000 men, were taken completely by surprise. Soon that part of Antigonus’ army routed. Eumenes had won a small but clear victory, taking over 4,000 of Antigonus’ men prisoner. Unable to cross, Antigonus was forced to head north, around the Zagros Mountains. Fresh from this victory and with Antigonus off his back, Eumenes now planned to turn around, returning with his large army towards the Mediterranean.

The Macedonian phalanx, from “Cassell’s Illustrated Universal History” (1893).

Image Credit: British Library / Public Domain

Yet his eastern allies, most notably Peucestas, refused to comply. They feared that if they headed west, Antigonus would ravage their provinces. The eastern provinces were some of the richest lands in the empire, after all. Relenting, Eumenes continued east to Peucestas’ provincial capital of Persepolis. Antigonus circumnavigated the Zagros Mountains and was again advancing on Eumenes. Eumenes marched his forces from Persepolis to meet those of his rival. On the plains of Paraetacene, their forces clashed once again.

The Battle of Paraetacene, 317 BC

At Paraetacene, Eumenes deployed his army at the bottom of the plain. His force numbered just over 40,000 men, including 35,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and 114 elephants. On his left, Eumenes placed over 3,000 of his cavalry. Then in his centre, he then placed his mercenary infantry, 5,000 troops trained in the Macedonian manner and finally, in the most prestigious place of the infantry line, the Silver Shields.

On his right wing, Eumenes placed his heavy cavalry, including both himself and Peucestas. Finally, Eumenes spread his elephants along the length of his line, with light infantry in between. Facing Eumenes, Antigonus’ army lay on a slight elevation to one side of the plain. His army was slightly smaller than that of Eumenes: 28,000 infantry, 8,500 cavalry and sixty-five elephants. On the left wing, he deployed his light cavalry: most notably a thousand agile horse archers from Parthia and two thousand expert Tarentine cavalry. These were placed under the command of Peithon.

Next to them, Antigonus placed his mercenary infantry, followed by 8,000 mixed Asian troops trained in the Macedonian manner and finally his 8,000 Macedonians. On his right wing, Antigonus placed his finest cavalry, the Companions, under the command of his son Demetrius, with himself furthest to the right. For his elephants, Antigonus placed most of them in front of his infantry line, facing those of Eumenes, with light infantry interspersed between them. Deployed in such a manner, Antigonus advanced his army at an angle. He moved his stronger right wing forward, keeping his lighter left wing further back.

Peithon’s charge

Sensing an opportunity for personal glory, Peithon decided to take matters into his own hands. He ordered his light cavalry on Antigonus’ left to advance against those facing them. Equipped with swift mounts and deadly missiles, these horsemen then rained arrows and javelins down on the opposing elephants and cavalry. Eumenes responded by sending a portion of his light cavalry on his left flank over to his right, chasing away Peithon’s light horsemen from the battle.

Meanwhile the infantry phalanxes had collided, and a desperate struggle was underway. Finally, the great experience of Eumenes’ silver shields shone through. Their unit had fought in the campaigns of both Philip II and his son Alexander; their skill was unmatched, crushing Antigonus’ opposing infantry easily. Much of Antigonus’ army was now in retreat. But the one-eyed general himself refused to withdraw. Seeing an opening on Eumenes’ left, he charged with his elite cavalry into the side of this force, causing panic. Eumenes’ left wing collapsed.

The rest of his army however was still intact and came to fend off any further attacks from Antigonus’ remaining forces. The battle ended with both sides claiming victory, yet it was Eumenes who had come off better. He had lost just over 500 men in the encounter; Antigonus on the other hand, had lost almost 4,000.

The war continues

Eumenes marched further east, to the rich lands of Gabiene while Antigonus returned to Media. Antigonus knew that the odds were now stacked against him; his losses at both the Coprates river and now at Paraecatene meant that his army was now notably smaller than that of Eumenes. He therefore attempted to outwit his foe with a surprise attack. Rather than waiting to restart campaigning next summer, Antigonus marched his army in the winter of 316 BC, through a harsh wilderness, hoping to surprise Eumenes.

Unfortunately for Antigonus, the plan was foiled and Eumenes managed to organise his forces on a nearby plain, awaiting the next battle. And so it was that in the winter of 316 BC, the final great clash between these formidable generals was to take place. It would decide the Second War of the Diadochi.

Ascending the throne in 223 BC, Antiochus inherited a Seleucid empire that had fallen into a downward spiral. Bactria, Parthia and large swathes of Syria had been lost by his predecessors. Antiochus aimed to stop the rot and restore uncontested Seleucid supremacy in Asia.  It would be no easy task. To achieve this goal he would have to re-unite lands stretching from the borders of India in the East to Macedonia in the West under his rule. Yet Antiochus remained undeterred.

By 210 BC, Antiochus had had mixed success. Although he initially faced great challenges – both against the pretender Molon and then against Ptolemy IV at Raphia in 217 BC – the young Seleucid had quickly recovered, recapturing large amounts of Asia Minor.

Looking east

Antiochus turned his gaze away from the eastern Mediterranean and towards the east. Antiochus sought to reassert Seleucid supremacy as far as the borders of India. Antiochus gathered a great Seleucid army for this expedition. The ancient source Justin claims it was 100,000 men strong, though this is almost certainly an exaggeration.

Among its ranks was a formidable cavalry body of at least 6,000 men, as well as at least 15,000 heavy infantrymen. They were the nucleus of Antiochus’ army, trained to form the Macedonian phalanx. Among these footmen was Antiochus’ crack unit, the Silver Shields. They were a 10,000 strong division named after Alexander’s own famous infantrymen. 10,000 peltasts, 2,000 Cretan archers and many mercenaries also filled the ranks.

In early 210 BC, Antiochus set off east. Within a year of reaching Parthia’s lands in 209 BC, resistance there had crumbled. Hyrkania was re-captured, as were the cities of Tambrax and Syrinx in southern Parthia. The new Parthian king, Arsaces II, submitted to Antiochus. Parthia belonged to Antiochus. Bactria was next.

Euthydemus acts

The Bactrian monarch Euthydemus, however, gathered a grand army and marched west to confront the Seleucid King. The Bactrian army was undoubtedly powerful. Not only did his infantry nucleus likely consist of Greek colonists trained in the Macedonian manner, but it would have been supported by expert Bactrian light infantry – men skilled at fighting in rough terrain.

That was not all. Among his force Euthydemus had many exotic beasts: terrifying war elephants from India as well as a substantial number of Bactrian camels in his supply train. Alongside all this, Euthydemus had another force more precious than the rest: his 10,000 Bactrian cavalry. Ever since the days of the Persian Empire, Bactria had been famed for its horsemen.

Some undoubtedly fought as light cavalry equipped with bows and javelins. Yet Euthydemus’ most powerful cavalry were his Bactrian cataphracts – heavily armoured horsemen who’s sheer weight could crush almost any opponent. Elite units of Hellenic companion cavalry likely also served alongside. Altogether it was among the most powerful cavalry forces in the known world.

Defending the Arius

Upon hearing that Antiochus’ force was closing in on the Arius River, Euthydemus sent his 10,000 expert cavalry ahead. Their orders were simple: prevent Antiochus’ force from crossing long enough for Euthydemus and his main army to arrive. For Euthydemus, the Arius would be where he would make his stand.

Yet Antiochus would not play Euthydemus’ game. When he was three days march away from the river, reports reached him that Euthydemus’ cavalry were guarding the Arius’ far bank. Without delay, he marched his army towards the river. For three days the Seleucid army marched at a steady pace, slowly approaching the Arius and the enemy. Yet when his army was within a day’s march of the river, Antiochus initiated a brilliant plan.

Intelligence

Antiochus’ reports had revealed much about the Bactrian cavalry awaiting him and they had revealed a flaw in the defence. His scouts had discovered that the Bactrian cavalry were not constantly stationed on the Arius river. The Greek-Roman historian Polybius reports that “he was informed that the cavalry of the enemy kept guard by day on the bank of the river, but at night retired to a city more than twenty stades off.”

That night, as the Bactrian cavalry returned to their cosy night-quarters, Antiochus therefore made his move. Ordering the rest of his army to continue the march the next morning, the Seleucid king gathered his cavalry and light infantry – some 15,000 men – and commenced a rapid march towards the river. The move was almost-perfectly executed. As the sun emerged the next morning, Antiochus’ select force had not only reached the Arius, but most of his force had also crossed completely unopposed. The rest of Antiochus’ army was still some way behind, however, and the Bactrians would soon be upon them.

The Bactrians return

They came sooner than expected. As the last part of Antiochus’ force was still crossing, Seleucid hearts fell. Rushing towards them were 10,000 Bactrian cavalry, alarmed by scouts of Antiochus’ manoeuvre. They were determined to send their foe back across the river. What was more, they had a gleaming opportunity to either kill or capture the Seleucid king.

Seeing the Bactrians advancing, Antiochus could not refuse the fight. Though most of his force were still not formed for battle, he gathered his 2,000 strong bodyguard andsounded the charge. If his small, elite force could hold the Bactrians for long enough for the rest of his army to form up, then Antiochus knew victory would be within sight. The strategy had huge risks.

The Battle of the Arius, 208 BC

Antiochus’ guard and the Bactrians quickly clashed. The fighting was fierce and Antiochus’ bodyguard struggled desperately to defend their king. The Bactrians were eager to drive their foe into the river and regain control of the crossing. A breakthrough was made when Antiochus’ guard routed a Bactrian squadron. The Seleucids started to get the upper hand. Yet fresh Bactrian support then charged in to the Seleucid royal guard.

River Arius (Hari River) with the Minaret of Jam, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Afghanistan.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Very soon the Seleucid guard began to suffer terribly. Most of their horses were killed from under them and many, including Antiochus, were forced to fight on foot. But Antiochus continued to resist, inspiring his troops with his bravery:

…the king had a horse killed under him and lost some of his teeth by a blow on the mouth: and his whole bearing obtained him a reputation for bravery of the highest description.

Polybius 10.49

The heroics Antiochus showed at the Arius would prove one of his finest moments. Yet even with the king’s brave antics, Antiochus’ guard soon began to waver. As the Bactrian noose closed in around the Seleucid necks all looked lost for Antiochus.

Relief

Just as the situation was looking most severe the battle was turned on its head. While Antiochus and his guard desperately fended off their Bactrian foes, his remaining cavalry formed up. Their charge was devastating and shattered the Bactrian cavalry. In disarray those that remained retreated to re-join Euthydemus’ army.

Upon seeing his shattered horsemen re-join his army, Euthydemus was aghast: his foe had shattered his elite corps and had already crossed the Arius. He ordered his remaining forces to retreat while Antiochus advanced into Bactria in pursuit. Though Antiochus may have won this battle, the war was far from over.

‘Paradise of the Earth’

Euthydemus retreated to his capital at Bactra. The majority of his army was still intact, and he now planned to withstand Antiochus long enough for the Seleucid king to sue for terms. No place better suited this than Bactra. Described as ‘the Mother of Cities’ and ‘Paradise of the Earth’, Bactra was a powerful city. Its strategic placement both on the banks of the navigable Oxus and along the lucrative silk road meant that trade flourished in this metropolis.

Alongside Ai-Khanoum, it was one of the richest cities in Bactria. Militarily too, we can presume the city of Bactra was formidable. For two years Antiochus attempted to breach the city to no avail. It proved one of the longest sieges in the whole of the 3rd century BC, second only perhaps to the siege of Syracuse. Finally, as both sides grew weary, talks to find a peaceful solution were initiated.

Depiction of Alexander’s siege of Tyre in 332 BC.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Negotiations

Antiochus was happy to engage in talks. His glorious eastern campaign was taking much longer than he had expected and he was  desperate to complete it. He sent an envoy called Teleas to Euthydemus to negotiate terms. Arriving at Euthydemus’ court, Teleas put forward Antiochus’ demands. We do not know what they were, but it seems probable from Euthydemus’ response that Antiochus deemed Euthydemus a usurper and demanded Bactria return to its rightful place as part of the Seleucid Empire.

But Euthydemus claimed he was no usurper. After all, it was he who had overthrown the Diodotids, the family who had revolted from the Seleucids in the first place. During the talks, Euthydemus also raised another point, which arguably had greater strength than the first.

The nomad threat

Living on the far-edge of the known world also had its downsides. To the north of Bactra, and especially beyond the Jaxartes, lay the land of hordes and steppe: the home of the ‘Scythians’ or ‘Sacae.’ Just as Macedonia and Epirus were the shields of Hellenism from barbarism on the Greek mainland, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom had a similar job in eastern Asia.

Bactria had frequently faced incursions from nomadic tribes in the past. The Persians, Alexander, the Seleucids and now the Greco-Bactrians – they had all built forts on the southern bank of the Jaxartes river to fend off this threat. With Euthydemus holed up in Bactra, that threat was rising. Aware that these nomads, attracted by the turmoil, gathered on his northern border, Euthydemus pleaded to Teleas that:

if Antiochus did not retract this demand [Euthydemus giving up his kingship], neither of them would be secure. The great hordes of Nomads were close at hand and were a great danger to both. If they failed to stop them getting into the country, it would certainly be utterly barbarised.

Polybius 11. 34

Euthydemus’ argument was that if Antiochus removed him from power, then Bactria could fall, quickly followed by the all Hellenism in Asia. Whether this was simply meant as a statement of fact or a more sinister, underlying threat by Euthydemus, it proved effective.

A compromise is reached

The two kings reached an agreement. Euthydemus would remain as king of Bactria, but with certain conditions: not only did Antiochus force him to hand over his mighty elephant division, but it is also likely Euthydemus paid some sort of homage to the Seleucid dynast. Euthydemus sent his son to Antiochus’ camp to confirm. This prince achieved more than simply ratifying this peace.

Upon meeting Euthydemus’ son, Antiochus was greatly impressed by the young man’s character. In Antiochus’ eyes, he was a Hellenistic king in the making. He thus offered his daughter in marriage to the Greco-Bactrian prince as well as confirming Euthydemus as king of Bactria. The young prince’s name was Demetrius, a man who would go on to wage one of the most fascinating campaigns of antiquity.

Antiochus ‘Megas’

Departing Bactria, Antiochus would linger in the far east a while longer. Reaching the Hindu Kush, he renewed Seleucid friendship with the local king Sophagasenus before returning west. Overall, his eastern campaign had been a great success. Hyrkania, Parthia, Aria and Bactria – Antiochus had gained success in all. Yet of them all, his success and personal valour at the Arius River stood out above the rest.

Such was Antiochus’ success in Seleucid eyes that he soon acquired a new moniker. No longer was he Antiochus III; now, he was deemed Antiochus Megas, meaning, ‘the Great.’ For the next 15 years Antiochus continued to expand Seleucid territory in the Mediterranean, attempting to reconquer the final parts of Seleucus’ great empire. His successes would not ultimately last. In 192 BC, Antiochus launched a campaign against a  rising foe in the west that ultimately proved his downfall: Rome.

The rise of the Greco-Bactrians

As for Euthydemus and the Greco-Bactrians, following Antiochus’ departure, the kingdom underwent significant expansion. Under both Euthydemus and his son Demetrius, the Greco-Bactrian Empire began to form. Their subjects honoured the Euthydemid dynasty in return:

Heliodotos dedicated this fragrant altar for Hestia, venerable goddess, illustrious amongst all, in the grove of Zeus, with beautiful trees; he made libations and sacrifices so that the greatest of all kings Euthydemus, as well as his son, the glorious, victorious and remarkable Demetrius, be preserved of all pains…

A dedication to Hestia in honour of Euthydemus and Demetrius, discovered in modern-day Tajikistan

From making contact with the Chinese (whom they called the Seres) in the East, to Arachosia and India in the South, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom would become the dominant force in the far-east – with their descendants even managing to campaign as far as the Ganges river.

Here are more generals who sought fame and fortune in the Wars of the Successors.

1. Antigonus

Antigonus served as both a general and a governor in the armies of Alexander the Great and Philip II. Following Alexander’s death, Antigonus was a leading player in the Wars of the Successors and, for a time, the most powerful person in the known world. His unprecedented power soon brought the ire of other claimants, who ganged up against him after he made clear he wanted the whole of Alexander the Great’s empire for himself.

The kingdoms of Antigonus and his rivals circa 303 BC

Image Credit: Public Domain / History Hit

He fought his last hoorah at Ipsus in 301 BC, aged 80. He remained on the field of battle until the end, faithful that Demetrius, his son, would rescue him from danger. Yet Demetrius never came and one of the behemoths of the period perished in a shower of enemy javelins.

2. Eumenes

Eumenes was the underdog of the Successor Wars, a Greek who hailed from a modest background in Cardia yet whose intelligence was noted by King Philip II. He served as Philip’s and then Alexander’s secretary. During his campaigns in India, Alexander tested Eumenes’ military capability when he gave him a minor command in his army in which Eumenes excelled.

Following Alexander’s death, Eumenes professed to serve the Macedonian royal family, the Argeads. He therefore first served Perdiccas, the regent, as one of his closest advisors. Eumenes achieved one of the most exceptional victories of the Successor Wars when he defeated Craterus in battle.

Eumenes’ greatest military rivalry began when Antipater tasked Antigonus to hunt down and defeat Eumenes. They faced each other in four battles that would take them from Asia Minor to the plains of Iran. Eventually, when it appeared victory was within his grasp, Eumenes was betrayed by his best men, the Silver Shields – veterans of Alexander the Great’s army – who handed Eumenes over to his foe. With apparent reluctance Antigonus gave the order for Eumenes’ execution in the winter of 316 BC.

3. Craterus

Craterus was the leading infantry commander during the campaigns of Alexander the Great. Following Alexander’s death Craterus became a major player during the early years of the Wars of the Successors. He developed a reputation as a formidable commander who had looked out for the army more than any other general.

However Craterus was outwitted by Eumenes in 321 BC, when the latter defeated and killed Craterus and many of his men in battle somewhere in western Asia Minor, near the Hellespont.

The fight of Eumenes against Neoptolemus, Battle of the Hellespont (321 BC). 1878 engraving.

Image Credit: Public Domain

4. Seleucus

Seleucus was one of the period’s most fascinating characters. A renowned general, he rose to control an empire stretching from Macedonia to Bactria within 35 years. He was a shrewd commander, political dealer and administrator – which helps explain why he was so successful when so many others were not. He outlived all the other successors but was assassinated in 280 BC when he was within miles of reaching Macedonia, his homeland, which he had not set foot in for over 50 years.

5. Cassander

The man who ended Alexander the Great’s bloodline was Cassander, son of Antipater, an early prominent player in the period’s feuds. He is recipient of a somewhat infamous reputation, for he was responsible for the deaths of four of Alexander the Great’s closest relatives: his mother, his wife, his legitimate son and his illegitimate son.

6. Antipater

When Alexander departed on his Persian Campaign, he knew he needed a steady hand to remain at home. To maintain control in Europe, Alexander left authority with a 65 year old man called Antipater. It proved a wise decision. Antipater managed these provinces with an iron fist, crushing dissent to Alexander’s rule. Following Alexander’s death, Antipater became one of the most senior figures in the empire.

He immediately faced trouble at home when the Athenians and Aetolians revolted in what is now known as the Lamian War. Antipater initially suffered defeat to the rebels but was rescued by Craterus, who sofrced Athens’ surrender soon afterwards.

When Antipater learned that Perdiccas, the regent, spought to nullify the marriage with his daughter Nicaea in favour of Alexander the Great’s sister Cleopatra, Antipater declared war on Perdiccas. This triggered the First War of the Successors. After Perdiccas’ death, Antipater became the new regent of the empire, though not for long. By 319 BC, he was eighty years old. After returning to Macedonia, his active lifestyle caught up with him. Exhausted, Antipater died peacefully from old age.

7. Polyperchon

When Antipater died in 319 BC, many expected his successor would be his son Cassander. Judging Cassander too strong to govern successfully, however, Antipater named another his successor: the veteran Polyperchon. Polyperchon had been a leading infantry general. After Alexander’s death he became a key aide of Antipater, and after Antipater’s death, Cassander became a discontented subordinate of Polyperchon. From the off, Polyperchon’s rule was in trouble. Although achieving some successes, Polyperchon was soon overthrown and forced to flee by Cassander.

Ptolemy, left, and Demetrius, right.

Image Credit: History Hit

8. Demetrius

Demetrius was the son of Antigonus, and a man raised for war. He won his greatest victory in 306 BC off the coast of Cyprus when his Antigonid fleet crushed the navy of Ptolemy, although his success in this battle was soon overshadowed by humiliation the following year when he failed to capture the island of Rhodes. Demetrius was easily swayed by opportunities for merry-making and in the end died in a pitiful state, drinking himself to death while a captive of Seleucus in 283 BC.

9. Leosthenes

Leosthenes was an Athenian mercenary general who, for reasons unknown, developed a legendary loathing for Alexander. In 324 BC, Leosthenes commanded a mercenary army which supported Athens’ revolt from the Macedonian empire. Leosthenes was elected state military commander and his charismatic leadership caused many Greek city states to side with them against the Macedonians.

With over 30,000 Greeks, Leosthenes gained a victory against Antipater, and it appeared only a matter of time before the Greek city states would be free. Yet one day, as Leosthenes led cavalry to repulse a Macedonian attack, he was struck by a catapult bolt shot from a Macedonian siege engine on the walls of Lamia. His death soon afterwards may well have helped the subsequent crushing of the revolt.

10. Cleitus the White

Cleitus the White was the admiral of the Macedonian fleet that was created in 323 BC and tasked with supporting the return of Craterus and 10,000 Macedonian veterans to Europe. He played a key role in crushing the Athenian revolt when his navy won at least three decisive naval engagements. When the First War of the Successors erupted between Antipater and Perdiccas, Cleitus sided with Antipater, the most powerful man in Europe, and allowed his forces to cross the Hellespont into Asia unhindered.

For the next three years Cleitus controlled the most powerful navy in the known world. Yet in 318 BC, his siding with Polyperchon, the new ruler of Macedonia, put him at odds with Antigonus and Cassander. Their rivalry ended with the complete destruction of Cleitus’ navy following a surprise attack.

11. Ptolemaus

Another lesser-known general was Ptolemaus, nephew of Antigonus. He served as a trusted commander and secured western Asia Minor for the Antigonid cause in 312 BC. He was sent to Greece with an army and gained successes for Antigonus, establishing himself as a dominant power in the Peleponnese. Ptolemaus’ loyalty to his uncle, however, wavered after Antigonus began giving Demetrius, his son, increasing authority. Ptolemaus soon began considering betrayal, but died in 309 BC while trying to gain the support of his namesake, Ptolemy, ruler of Egypt.

12. Alexander

Alexander was the son of Polyperchon and one of the most underrated generals of the Successor Wars. Having gained a reputation as a formidable military commander, Alexander sailed to Tyre and confirmed an alliance between Polyperchon, himself and the Antigonids. However, Alexander’s loyalty proved flimsy as he betrayed Polyperchon, his own father, later that year after taking a bribe. Alexander did not live long following this act. He was killed while laying siege to Sicyon in 314 BC. His wife continued the siege and became another of antiquity’s greatest warrior women:

13. Cratesipolis

Following the death of her husband, Cratesipolis conquered the city of Sicyon. The Sicyonians, believing it would be easy to overthrow her, soon attempted a coup. She quelled the revolt with ease, with the full support of her soldiers. Cratesipolis remained a major player in the Peloponnese for a few years, but she later gave up her power to Ptolemy and retreated to Patras to live out the rest of her days in peace.

14. Alcetas

Alcetas was a Macedonian general who served in the army of Alexander the Great. He is best known as the younger brother of Perdiccas, who was one of Alexander’s most trusted generals. Alcetas staunchly supported his older brother and demonstrated his support in 322 BC by slaying Cynane as she attempted to place her daughter on the Macedonian throne.

Alcetas’ loyalty was strained in 321 BC when he refused to aid Eumenes against Antipater and Craterus. He remained in Pisidia for two years, fending off attacks from neighbouring governors under orders to execute him as an enemy of the state. He was finally outwitted by Antigonus and, realising all was lost, he committed suicide in 319 BC.

15. Peithon

Peithon, the son of a Macedonian nobleman called Agenor, served as an officer in Alexander’s army. When he departed India in 325 BC, Alexander left Peithon to govern the new province of the lower Indus – one of the most volatile satrapies in the empire due to the massacres inflicted in the region. Peithon remained in India for the ten years before he returned to aid Antigonus. He was appointed satrap of Babylon in 315 BC, after Seleucus fled the city. He became a military advisor to Demetrius, Antigonus’ son, and in the battle at Gaza (312 BC) he was killed.

Yet in 113 BC a new threat neared Italy – a giant Germanic horde that had descended from the northern reaches of Europe, intent on finding new lands to settle. The greatest threat to Rome since Hannibal Barca, this is the story of the Cimbric War and the shining moment of one of the Republic‘s most famous figures.

The coming of the Cimbri

In 115 BC a great migration shook central Europe. The Cimbri, a Germanic tribe hailing originally from what is now the Jutland Peninsula, had started migrating south. Harsh winter conditions or flooding of their homeland had forced them to take this drastic measure and search for a new homeland.

The horde headed southwards. Hundreds of thousands of people filled its ranks – men, women and children. And it was not long before the migration swelled further. As the Cimbri journeyed south, two other Germanic tribes had joined the migration: the Ambrones and Teutones.

By 113 BC, after a long and perilous journey, they had arrived at the Celtic kingdom of Noricum, situated on the northern reaches of the Alps. At the time, Noricum was inhabited by the Taurisci, a Celtic tribe. Upon the arrival of this huge migration they sought aid from their ally to the south. That ally was Rome. The Romans agreed to help. Gnaeus Carbo, the Roman consul for the year 113 BC, was sent to Noricum with an army to deal with this new threat.

Map highlighting The migration of the Cimbri and the Teutons (Credit: Pethrus / CC).

Disaster at Noreia

For Carbo this was his moment. The Roman patrician was consul for only one year. If he was to make his name in the history books, gaining glory on the battlefield with a great victory was essential. But Carbo was to be disappointed. Upon his arrival in Noricum, the Cimbri sent ambassadors. They had no intention of getting involved in a war with the Mediterranean superpower. Carbo, however, had other ideas. Feigning agreement to a peaceful solution, secretly he made preparations for battle.

A disaster ensued. Carbo had planned to ambush the horde as they were leaving Taurisci territory, but his treachery was discovered. Reports reached the tribesmen of the intended ambush. Their ambush discovered, thousands of Germanic warriors descended on the soldiers. Almost all of the Roman force was killed – Carbo himself committing suicide in the aftermath.

Roman soldiers wearing arms and armour of the time.

Further defeats

Following their victory, the Cimbri, Teutons and Ambrones headed west to Gaul. Traversing the land, they raided and pillaged – Gallic tribes either joining or resisting the new threat. It was not long before the Romans responded. Armies attempted to contest to Cimbri and their allies in southern Gaul, keen to retain Roman control over Gallia Narbonensis. But these initial forces met only with defeat.

Arausio

In 105 BC the Romans decided to end the threat once and for all. They amassed two massive armies – 80,000 Romans in total mustered to form one of the largest forces in the Republic’s history.

This new force headed to southern Gaul and it was not long before it encountered the Cimbri and the Teutons. Near the town of Arausio on 6 October 105 BC the decisive battle was fought, with disastrous consequences for the Romans. Animosity between the two leading Roman commanders caused the engagement to end in catastrophic disaster. In turn the two commanders and their armies were surrounded by the Germans and slaughtered.

By the end of the day 80,000 Roman soldiers lay dead, not to mention the thousands of auxiliaries that had accompanied them. It was the greatest military disaster in Rome’s history, eclipsing Cannae 100 years before and the Teutoburg Forest tragedy 100 years later.

Victorious once again, the Cimbri, Teutons, Ambrones and their Gallic allies decided against invading Italy proper. Instead they searched for more plunder in Gaul and the rich Iberian Peninsula. For Rome, this decision offered them the critical respite they so desperately needed.

The return of Marius

In 105 BC, a famous Roman general returned to Italy. His name was Gaius Marius, the victor of the recently-concluded Jugurthine War in north Africa. Marius was very popular with the soldiers – a general with multiple victories behind his back. It was Marius who the Romans looked to in this time of need.

Taking advantage of the time the Germans had gifted him, Marius set about recruiting a new army. But there was a problem. Manpower was an issue. Over 100,000 Romans had already perished fighting the migration; new, eligible recruits were sparse. Marius also realised that fundamental reform of the structure and tactics of the Roman army was necessary to defeat this new enemy.

The Marian reforms

So Marius came up with a radical solution. He altered the Roman recruitment system to allow the Roman proletarii – the poor and landless – to enlist. In what was considered a truly radical move, he removed the property requirement until then necessary for service in the legions. Promises of pay and land at the end of their service were added incentives. Only in the most dire of situations had Rome previously resorted to arming these men.

Thanks to these reforms, it was not long before Marius’ new army swelled with new recruits. He placed them on an effective training regime, transforming his array of raw recruits into a physically tough and mentally strong force. Disciplined and loyal, Marius prepared his men to stand up to the toughest attacks that Germanic fighters would throw at them. This involved training with loaded marches and other exercises, but also making his men accustomed to the sight of the tall, fearless Germanic warriors.

Marius meets the Cimbri ambassadors.

The tide of war turns

Marius had successfully transformed the Roman army into the most effective fighting force yet seen. In 102 BC the news finally reached Italy that the Germanic tribes were marching east towards Italy. Marius and his new model army headed to southern Gaul to confront the menace. In 102 BC Marius and his men encountered the Teutons and Ambrones at Aquae Sextiae. After fending off a Teuton attack on their encampment, the two forces engaged in a pitched battle.

Marius and his legionaries positioned themselves on a hill, while their enemy charged. As the legions held their ground inflicting terrible losses on their foe fighting uphill, a Roman contingent charged the Germans from behind, causing a rout. The Teutons and Ambrones were massacred.

The last stand and suicide of the Teuton women and their children at Aquae Sextiae.

Fresh from victory, Marius and his legions returned to northern Italy. The Cimbri, in the meantime, invaded from the north. On 30 July 101 BC the final battle occurred at Vercellae. Once again Marius and his new army won a decisive victory. The Cimbri were massacred. As the Romans stormed the Cimbri camp, the tribes’ women resisted their foe in a last stand. Almost all the Cimbri tribesmen were slaughtered – their women and children sent into a life of slavery. The Germanic threat was no more.

‘The Third Founder of Rome’

Despite initially suffering several disastrous defeats, the Romans had recovered and adapted. But in the end their foe’s decision to plunder Spain and not march on Italy after their great victory at Arausio was key, allowing Marius the time to muster and train his new, model army. As for Marius, he was hailed as the saviour of Rome; no less than “the third founder of Rome,” reports Plutarch, “as having diverted a danger no less threatening than was that when the Gauls sacked Rome.”

Marius would go on to take consulship 7 times – an unprecedented number. Backed by his army he became the first of the great warlords that epitomised the late Republican period and dominated the Roman political scene. Yet his victory against the Cimbri was his finest hour.

The odds appeared firmly stacked against the Thebans. Their army was outnumbered and faced a Spartan-led force confident of victory. Yet the result of this encounter would decide the future for both Thebes and Sparta: futures of supremacy or subjugation.

4th century BC Greece

Greece at the start of the 4th fourth century BC was still reeling from its recent history. The Spartan victory in the Peloponnesian War had decimated Athens’ military power and left the victors the dominant city in the Greek world. But already wars had broken out, with prestigious cities such as Corinth and Athens desperate for independence from the Spartan yoke.

For Sparta, victory in the Peloponnesian War was just the start. They sought lasting authority. Like Athens and Corinth, Thebes resented the Spartan influence. By 378 BC, enough was enough. That year, a successful coup by a small group of Theban exiles succeeded in expelling both Sparta’s military and political presence from the city. Thebes celebrated. They had thrown off “the fetters of the Lacedaemonian supremacy, which were thought indissoluble and not to be broken,” in Plutarch’s words.

The Boeotian War

For the next seven years, war between these two cities ensued. Neither side could land anything near a decisive blow. This indecisiveness benefited Thebes significantly as their influence in their homeland of Boeotia grew stronger. With that came confidence that they could topple Sparta in its own field of expertise: warfare.

Both Theban leaders Epaminondas and Pelopidas were men who had, according to Plutarch, “a divine desire of seeing their country glorious by their exertions”. They dreamt of a powerful Greece, lead by their own glorious city. 

Failed negotiations

And so we get to 371 BC. Following an attempt to end the war, Sparta made peace with Athens and other major Greek cities that had also taken part in this conflict. Yet there was one notable failure. Epaminondas, buoyed by ambition, confidence or hatred of Spartan leadership, refused to agree to the treaty. The reason? Such a treaty would have removed Theban influence it had gained over its neighbouring cities and reinstated Sparta as the dominant power.

This would have reversed all the steps he had so far. Why should his city give up control of its allies when Sparta would not consider doing the same with theirs? Peace talks failed, but they had achieved one critical matter. The war for supremacy was now solely between these two contestants and their allies. Within twenty days of the failed talks, both armies faced each other on the plain of Leuctra.

The Battle of Leuctra 371 BC

Leuctra’s landscape was well-suited for warfare centred around the hoplite infantryman. Armed with a spear and shield these men fought as one in trained formations called phalanxes. Although cavalry and light troops were usually also at these battles, it was these heavy infantrymen that almost always decided the fate of the engagement.

Leuctra was ideal for this warfare. A flat plain with dry ground and zero obstacles allowed the formations to be maintained with relative ease. Indeed, the plain of Leuctra became so ideal for settling Greek disputes that it became known as the ‘dancing floor of Greek war.’ Battle was imminent and the Spartan force, outnumbering that of the Thebans by a ratio of 3:2, was confident of victory. Yet Epaminondas and Pelopidas had their own reason for confidence.

The critical innovation

Epaminondas knew how the Spartans would fight. He knew two things of the enemy: that their cavalry was atrocious and their best troops would be located on the right flank. These troops would be the Spartans themselves, hoping to bulldoze their opposing forces and then envelop the rest of the opposing army. Yet in their own army, the Spartans themselves numbered only 700. The majority of its army was made up of its allies, forced to send troops due to treaty obligations. Thus if the Spartans themselves were defeated, these allies would have no reason for fighting.

Here came the simple, but deadly innovation. Rather than lining up in a similar fashion to the Spartan army, Epaminondas concentrated his strongest forces on the left wing. The intent was to destroy the Spartan force before the rest of the army had even engaged. Rigorous military training of these Thebans, instigated by Epaminondas, meant that these men were no mere levies, but capable fighters. Spearheading these soldiers was Thebes’ Sacred Band.

The Sacred Band

Lead by Pelopidas, these 300 men were the cream of the Theban army and their answer to the full-time professional soldiers of Sparta. Consistent training and fitness had made them more than equal to their counterparts. For the first time, Sparta was not the only Greek power with full-time soldiers.

Following the destruction of the Spartan cavalry at Leuctra by their own superior mounted troops, the Thebans, fronted by the Sacred Band, charged the Spartan foot. Despite resistance, even after their king, Cleombrotus, had fallen, the Spartans succumbed to the Boeotian phalanx. Plutarch recalls “That there began such a flight and slaughter amongst the Spartans as was never known before”.

Epaminondas defending Pelopidas at the Siege of Mantinea (385 BC).

Image Credit: Public Domain

Seeing Spartan troops in flight, Sparta’s allies refused to engage. The battle was over. Epaminondas’ tactics and militarisation of the Theban army had resulted in a glorious victory. Pausanias even went as far to state that this victory was the most famous ever won by Greeks over Greeks. The Spartans had simply been outgeneralled. Spartan supremacy began to crumble and Thebes became the new dominant city in the Greek world. Epaminondas and Pelopidas, through their efforts to make this happen, had achieved their goal.

Theban dominance would be short-lived. Both men died shortly after Leuctra in different battles (Epaminondas at Mantinea and Pelopidas in Thessaly). Following their deaths, Theban power crumbled and Greece again became divided and weak. But such division directly paved the way for a new power; that of Philip II of Macedon and his son, Alexander.

Influencing a king

One of the most fascinating consequences from Leuctra was its influence on the future Philip II of Macedon. A hostage in Thebes at the time of Leuctra, he would have undoubtedly heard of the heroics of the city’s soldiers. Philip’s own innovations to the Macedonian army followed Epaminondas’ demonstration of how the Greek phalanx could be beaten.

Like the Thebans at Leuctra, this phalanx’s strength came from very deep ranks. Its men carried radical six-metre-long pikes, combined with sufficient training to maintain this radical new formation, even when active on the battlefield! Philip also increased the effectiveness of his cavalry. Leuctra had shown that the use of cavalry and infantry in joint action could have a devastating impact.

Philip’s new-look Macedonian army would prove its worth against the Greek cities (including Thebes’ Sacred Band) 33 years later at Chaeronea. This victory would pave the way for Philip’s son, Alexander, to become one of the greatest generals in antiquity.

Within three years of Alexander’s demise, political rivalries and ambitions to match the achievements of their predecessor resulted in chaos. Commanders and colleagues drew arms against each other in a deadly fight for dominance. Among them were Eumenes and Antigonus.

Eumenes and Antigonus

Regarded as one of the most fascinating generals of the period following Alexander’s death, Eumenes was a Greek of a non-aristocratic background who gained renown as the personal secretary of Alexander. Although not a military commander in this role, his was one of the most important in the kingdom. Eumenes wrote the letters and correspondence of the conqueror himself. Eumenes acquired prestige, becoming a key player in a world mainly ruled by aristocratic Macedonians.

Following Alexander’s death, Eumenes faced challenges from the aristocrat generals. On multiple occasions they would try to have him murdered by his own soldiers. Eumenes defied all such attempts; he deployed cunning and brilliance as a private secretary turned-commander.

The fight of Eumenes against Neoptolemus, Battle of the Hellespont (321 BC). 1878 engraving.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Antigonus, meanwhile, embodied the stereotype of Alexander’s successors: a Macedonian aristocrat who had served as a general in the conquest of Persia. Like other claimants to Alexander’s succession, Antigonus desired power in the reconfigured empire.

The fight for the empire

By 318 BC, five years after Alexander’s death, a crucial war for control raged between these capable men. To date Eumenes had defied the odds, despatching opponents in Craterus and Neoptolemus. He had been so successful that he took the title of ‘King’s General in Asia’, an eminent position for only the most successful and loyal of generals.

Antigonus travelled from the west to extinguish Eumenes’ success. On hearing of Antigonus’ arrival, Eumenes in turn hastily marched his forces east. What followed was a cat and mouse campaign: whenever Antigonus thought he had Eumenes cornered, this Greek would somehow escape his grasp.

An end in sight

Eumenes’ military genius paid off, however. By 316 BC, Antigonus was on the brink of total defeat. Having followed Eumenes all the way to modern day Iran with a large army of infantry, cavalry and elephants, the two forces repeatedly collided. In each engagement, Eumenes’ army inflicted heavy losses on Antigonus, and lost few men. In the final battle at Gabiene, Antigonus’ army was soundly beaten by Eumenes.

Most historians agree that Eumenes was in a position to almost certainly defeat Antigonus. But this did not happen. On the brink of victory, Eumenes was handed over to Antigonus and executed.

Won the battle, lost the war

Eumenes appeared to have won the battle, yet one action during the fight damned him. In Eumenes’ army was an infantry unit called the Argyraspids (literally meaning, the ‘Silver Shields’). In 316 BC, these men were the most famous soldiers in the world. They had served alongside Alexander on his epic conquest, and fought for famous victories at Issus, Gaugamela and the Hydaspes River. Sources such as Diodorus emphasise that these famed veterans also won Eumenes his military achievements.

Though the most famous soldiers in the world, these veterans also proved the most difficult to control. They had followed Alexander to the ends of the world. They worshipped almost like a god. Who, they thought, could be as worthy as Alexander to command such a prestigious fighting force? Thus, even with Eumenes’ tactical brilliance and command, maintaining control of these troops proved almost impossible.

The baggage train problem

It was the actions of this unruly elite force that ultimately doomed Eumenes. Antigonus, although soundly beaten at Gabiene, had one saving grace. With his cavalry, Antigonus managed to capture Eumenes’ baggage train: the portable camp where all the booty was located, as well as the wives and children who travelled with the army. The problem here was the Argyraspids – the Silver Shields. As Edward Anson highlights, the baggage train’s capture,

included their families and the loot of a decade’s service in Asia […] the sources are very clear that the Argyraspids’ only concern was to retrieve their possessions and families […] their camp had become their home.

Edward Anson, Eumenes of Cardia (2004)

In one act, Antigonus had taken everything these veterans held dearly. Now, they wanted it back. The baggage train incident was actually just the tip of the iceberg. Underlying dissatisfaction towards Eumenes by the Silver Shield commanders and other generals was already present. If we are to believe Plutarch, the Argyraspid commander, Antigenes and a few other generals, had already been planning to betray Eumenes before the battle had even started.

The result

Instead of finally destroying Antigonus and his army, Eumenes woke up to be handed over to his adversary. Antigonus treated his new found captive with respect, having come to admire his captive’s formidable skill. He therefore pondered over the Greek’s fate for a few days. In the end, however, Antigonus decided not to be merciful. Having been starved for three days, Eumenes was executed. Thus ends the tale of Eumenes. A man whose superb, albeit short, military career was ended by an inglorious act of treachery by his own men.

Antigonus went on to have a wealthy and highly ambitious career that culminated at the climactic Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. Ultimately his family would end up establishing its own dynasty that would rule over Macedonia for the next 100 years; eventually confronting an expansionist Rome in 168 BC.

Meanwhile the treachery of the Argyraspids led Antigonus to condemn them. He ordered his troops to throw the Argryraspid general, Antigenes, into a pit where they had him burned alive. The rest of the veterans were reportedly sent to a far-flung corner of the known world, where they might perish fighting in dangerous missions; a brutal end to the men who helped forge Alexander’s Empire.

The Romans had to seize Jerusalem if they were to put down this bloody revolt, but Vespasian himself had other plans. In 69 AD, he was proclaimed emperor in the wake of Nero’s death. He departed the eastern Mediterranean for Rome, leaving his son Titus to finish off the Jewish revolt. The subsequent siege of Jerusalem would prove to be one of the most terrible in Roman history.

Divisions in Jerusalem

Vespasian had passed the task of taking Jerusalem onto his son. The general Pompey had only succeeded in capturing Jerusalem when he could call upon supporters inside the city, while Vespasian’s predecessor Cestius Gallus hadn’t even reached Jerusalem’s walls. But Jerusalem was a divided city, and not even the looming spectre of Titus’ legions was enough to reconcile its defenders.

At the same time Vespasian received news of Nero’s death, the Zealot leader John of Gischala was establishing his own base of power. Only remnants of the Judaean Free Government still survived to oppose Zealot control, but one last hope survived to topple John from power. Simon bar Giora, who had fled Titus’ advance, was now heralded by the people as the saviour against John’s oppression. With popular support behind him, Simon’s 15,000 strong army easily seized control of the upper city in the west. But crucially the Temple Mount in the east still lay in Zealot hands.

Remnants of one of several legionary camps at Masada in Israel, just outside the circumvallation wall at the bottom of the image.

Image Credit: David Shankbone, user on Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

Meanwhile, a Roman prison didn’t seem to be suiting Josephus, a rebel leader captured at the earlier siege of Jotapata. Josephus announced that Vespasian would rise to become emperor, and when this startling prediction came true Vespasian immediately praised Josephus as a “valiant man” and regretted the hardships Josephus had endured. Titus convinced his father to free him.

As Titus pressed upon Jerusalem, he employed Josephus as a negotiator in exchange for his freedom. Following Titus’ campaign, surely an approving account of his victory over Josephus’ own people was not too much to ask? Though self-serving, Josephus’ histories are an important source for the events of the Great Revolt. In a few short years Josephus, once a bitter enemy of Rome, became Roman himself with the most powerful man in the world as his patron.

The siege of Jerusalem

By 23 April, 70 AD, the Romans had surrounded Jerusalem. The Fretensis and Macedonica legions had approached from the east and west, but valleys encircled Jerusalem on three sides. For Titus there was only one option: a direct northern assault. The legions set up camp a kilometre away atop Mount Scopus, in sight of Jerusalem.

With a contingent of 600 cavalry, Titus began reconnoitring the rough terrain around the city. Suddenly defenders fell upon the column. Titus was separated from the bulk of the retreating Roman cavalry. At the siege of Jotapata, Titus had proven himself a brave soldier when he led a stealth mission to open the gates. But his encirclement on this scouting mission suggests his relative inexperience as a general. Exposed and outnumbered, Titus was forced to fight for his life before eventually escaping.

What happened during the siege of Jerusalem?

From the Mount of Olives, Titus brooded over the best way to break Jerusalem. The city had ample water reserves but food supplies were under constant strain. Before the Romans had even arrived, factional quarrelling, an influx of refugees, and Passover celebrations were already stretching provisions. But Titus knew that attrition warfare would not be enough.

Instead he bided his time while the defenders made plans of their own. Emboldened by their initial sortie against Titus, the defenders launched a surprise attack on the Mount of Olives. There they caught the Fretensis legion completely off guard. The 20,000 defenders were no professional army, but the legion they faced were battle-hardened. The Romans rallied and steadily pushed the defenders back. Nevertheless, this was a muted victory for the Romans.

Breaking through

Deciding that an assault from the east across the Kidron valley would be in vain, Titus moved three legions to the north-west. Here the flat terrain offered the easiest route in. Battering rams and siege ramps were prepared along the length of the outer wall, from the Jaffa gate to the Psephinus tower. But even with the combined strength of three legions, the Romans were vulnerable.

Projectiles rained down upon them and the defenders made frequent sorties to slow construction. The resourceful Roman engineers had a solution. Three almighty siege towers were erected and rolled out. Completely fireproof and dwarfing the walls, the towers drew the defenders eyes as the rams pummelled their way through the fortifications. On the 15th day of the siege, Jerusalem’s outer wall finally gave way.

The second wall

Titus had the defenders on the ropes. Or so it seemed. Four days later, a small breach was formed in the second wall and the Romans swarmed through once again. But all was quiet. Suddenly, defenders appeared from nowhere. In the excitement, the breach was not widened. As the Roman force crumbled under arrow fire, the breach became a bottleneck as desperate legionaries scrambled to safety. In disarray, the Roman camp within the city walls was now under threat.

Fighting raged long into the night until the Romans eventually fended off the defenders. Titus had learned his lesson: the entire northern section of the second wall demolished and the siege engines moved in.

Sabotage

It had taken the might of four legions to break through the first two walls. Now Titus had no choice but to divide his forces. In the west, the XV and X Fretensis legions besieged the last of the city’s walls. Meanwhile the Thunderbolt and Macedonica legions began constructing colossal siege ramps to overcome the fearsome Antonia citadel which guarded the Temple Mount. But Titus continued to underestimate his enemy.

The defenders had been preoccupied with engineering works of their own. By late May, the Romans had completed their siege ramps. But one evening, Simon bar Giora launched a surprise attack to the west, setting Roman siege equipment ablaze. Only when Titus and his cavalry rode to the rescue were Simon’s forces pushed back. Meanwhile to the east, defenders set the pit props of a massive tunnel leading beneath Antonia Fortress and the Roman siege ramps alight. The ground gave way, along with two weeks of tireless construction.

The legions regroup

With summer, Titus sought to capitalise on Jerusalem’s low water supplies. An 8-kilometre wall of circumvallation and thirteen forts was erected to surround the Jewish defenders. Starvation now ravaged Jerusalem: Josephus reports that a woman named Mary murdered her infant son in her ravenous hunger. Those caught at night trying to salvage supplies were crucified. Still, after two and a half months of siege, Jerusalem had not fallen.

The Antonia Fortress

The Romans themselves were also running out of supplies for the construction of siege equipment. One big push was needed. All four legions descended upon the Antonia Fortress. The mine had weakened the fortress and the Romans were able to punch through to the Temple complex itself. In close combat, the Temple’s northern colonnades interrupted Roman formations and, under a hail of missiles, the Romans were repelled.

La distruzione del tempio di Gerusalemme, Francesco Hayez.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Towards the end of July, Titus was desperate for results. He launched several costly attacks against the north-western wall of the Temple complex. The Romans who scaled the western wall with ladders were caught in a trap when the Zealots set the breach ablaze, engulfing the Romans in a firestorm.

The Temple falls

By August, Titus’s victory was as elusive as ever. But on 5 August, the last of the daily sacrificial lambs are supposed to have run out, providing an opportunity for Titus to capitalise on the defenders’ low morale. Less than a week later the defenders launched an attack, determined to repel the Romans. When a Roman legionary hurled a torch into the midst of the Jewish ranks, the defenders scattered as the flames rose. The fire raged until much of the Temple was engulfed.

For weeks the Romans had encountered fierce resistance as they attempted to overcome the bottleneck of the Antonia Fortress. But now the defenders only looked on in horror as the enemy broke through. Swarming into the central courtyard, the Romans trampled over all in their path, slaughtering all in their way. The worst was yet to come.

Amidst the death and destruction, Titus strode through the Temple and gazed upon the inner sanctuary. But nowhere was safe from the flames. Soon even the Holiest of Holies itself, the Temple’s innermost sanctuary, was ablaze. Titus wrestled with his blood-crazed troops to quench the blaze.

Accident or atrocity?

The destruction of the Temple is still mourned to this day. But who was responsible? Josephus tells us that the day before the Temple fell Titus convened his war cabinet. Vetoing his staff who advised its destruction, Titus declared that it should be spared at all costs. Through his chief negotiator, Josephus himself, he stated that:

No Roman shall either come near your sanctuary, or offer any affront to it; nay, I will endeavour to preserve you your holy house, whether you will or not.

Josephus

Titus was benevolent – at least in Josephus’ telling. A 4th century Christian, Sulpicius Severus, has it another way: Sulpicius says that Titus overruled his staff in his determination to destroy the Temple and prevent a rebellious resurgence. Even as the Temple burned, Titus ordered the holy treasures to be salvaged. It was 666 years to the day since the Babylonians had destroyed the First Temple. The Second had fallen to the Romans and Titus was to blame.

Arch of Titus

Image Credit: ansharphoto / Shutterstock.com

Why is the siege of Jerusalem important?

With the destruction of the Temple all hope for Jerusalem was lost. The symbol and stronghold of Jewish resistance had been overrun. It took another month for the Romans to crush the remaining defenders, many hiding in the sewers to escape capture. But they could not hide forever. By 8 September John and Simon had surrendered, signalling the end of the Great Revolt. Jerusalem lay in ruins at the mercy of the Romans. According to Josephus, over one million people may have perished during the siege and a hundred thousand more were enslaved.

Titus returned to Rome, exalted by crowds and brandishing the holy treasures that only the High Priest was supposed to see. Coins were minted commemorating Rome’s victory in Judaea and arches were erected glorifying Titus. But Rome’s humiliation of Jerusalem was not complete. Vespasian introduced a crippling tax, the fiscus Judaicus, upon all Jews, men and women, children and slaves to fund the rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline hill.

Even after this temple was rebuilt, the fiscus Judaicus remained a terrible reminder of Rome’s subjugation of Jerusalem. Long after the cries of battle had subsided and the rubble had been cleared, Jerusalem was still a city under siege.

On that spot the Chalcidians settled and established the first Greek settlement on Sicily. It was named Naxus.

Naxus was situated on Sicily’s eastern coastline, adjacent to Mount Etna.

Image Credit: History Hit

Naxus was the first of many Greek colonies in Sicily. Within ten years of its foundation, six more Hellenic settlements had been established on the island; within a hundred years that number was nearer twenty. By the turn of the 5th century BC, Greek cities dotted Sicily’s eastern and southern coastlines. No longer were they all small, isolated settlements however. By then many had become prominent political entities on the island, ruled by powerful tyrants.

Hippocrates

In 491 BC, much of eastern Sicily lay in the hands of one such man. His name was Hippocrates, the ruler of a relatively minor Greek city called Gela. Despite its small size, under Hippocrates’ leadership Gela became the nucleus of the most powerful kingdom in Sicily.

Conquest after conquest, victory after victory, by 491 BC Hippocrates and his army looked unstoppable. Still no rapid expansion continues forever and later that year Hippocrates was killed while laying siege to Megara Hyblae, one of the last cities on the eastern coastline that remained resisting his power. The age of Hippocrates was over; but another ambitious tyrant soon took his place.

Hippocrates’ Empire in 491 BC. It stretched from Zancle in the North-east to the Himeras River in the south.

Image Credit: History Hit

Gelon

Emerging from a noble background, Gelon had been a senior cavalry officer in Hippocrates’ army. He was well-respected among the soldiers and Gelon used this to his advantage, seizing control and naming himself Hippocrates’ successor. He aimed to continue the expansion his predecessor had started. But things, initially, did not go according to plan.

Not long after gaining power, Gelon lost control of Zancle, the Greek bastion in the north-east, to the rival tyrant Anaxilas who was based across the narrow straits in Rhegium. It was a blow for Gelon. Never again would he control that vital part of the island, the gateway to southern Italy. It was not all bad news.

Outdoing Hippocrates

In his lifetime Hippocrates had conquered almost all of Sicily’s eastern shoreline. Yet two Greek cities had eluded his grasp: Megara Hyblae and Syracuse. Both cities would play prominent roles in any biography of Hippocrates: he had lost his life outside the walls of the former and against the latter he had won perhaps his greatest victory in 492 BC, at the Battle of the Helorus River.

He had, however, not taken Syracuse in the aftermath of this decisive battle and the city remained free from Hippocrates’ control.

By 483 BC Gelon had fulfilled Hippocrates’ grand ambitions. Not only had he successfully stormed and suppressed Megara Hyblae, but he had also subdued Syracuse. Syracuse’s submission was especially pivotal. Recognising its potential for power and prosperity, Gelon situated his court there, depopulating neighbouring towns and relocating them in his forecast metropolis. No longer was Gela the epicentre of Gelon’s empire. That role now lay with Syracuse.

The alliance

Recreating Syracuse was one piece in a much larger puzzle for Gelon. Back in circa 490 BC, when Gelon was seeking to establish his regime, he allied himself with another powerful tyrant on the island: Theron, the ruler of Acragas. Joining their domains in an alliance, the newly-established Syracusan-Acragas bloc controlled a significant portion of the east and south of the island.

But they weren’t the only major force in Sicily. To the west, stretching along the length of Sicily’s north coast, the north African city of Carthage had significant influence.

Carthage in Sicily

Originally founded by Phoenician colonists back around 814 BC, the city of Carthage had soon become the centre of a large empire. Spain, Sardinia, Numidia, the Balearic Islands and Libya were all places the Carthaginians settled. Yet one lucrative land attracted Punic eyes more than any other: Sicily, the jewel of the Mediterranean.

In the 8th century BC, these ‘Punic’ settlers had founded Motya on Sicily’s extreme western edge – their first colony. Further settlements followed and very quickly Punic influence had gained a strong foothold over Sicily’s northern and western shorelines, within which was included some notable Greek and Siciliote settlements – Selinus, Segesta and Eryx for instance. By 483 BC, Carthaginian influence spread the length of these two coastlines, from Selinus in the west to Rhegium in southern Italy.

Much of Sicily was therefore divided between two power blocs in 483 BC: Gelon and Theron to the east and south, Carthage and its allies to the north and west. Before this time relations between them had been cordial, though occasional territorial incidents had occurred. In 580 BC, for instance, Greek settlers had audaciously attempted to found a settlement on the western tip of Sicily, near Lilybaeum. The Carthaginians were having none of it and they swiftly defeated the expedition.

70 years later the Carthaginians destroyed another expedition, led by a royal Spartan called Doreius (the brother of the famed Leonidas), which had similarly aimed to establish a settlement in western Sicily within the Punic sphere. Both of these incidents may have rustled patriotic feathers on either side, but full-scale war never seemed likely. But by 483 BC, it was fast approaching.

At ancient Judaea’s heart lay Jerusalem. Over the centuries waves of Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Greeks descended upon David’s city, all determined to claim it for their own empires. But throughout its long history under siege, Jerusalem had never experienced anything quite like the Romans.

Roman Judaea

By the mid-1st century AD, war lurked in the shadows of Roman Judaea. Following the death of Herod Agrippa, the King of Judaea, in 44 AD, Judaea was doomed to two decades of corrupt and hostile procurators.

The last and worst of these was Florus. Though wholly unsuited to the job description, the friendship between Florus’ and the emperor Nero’s wives gifted the former an attractive promotion. Reprehensible though this was, cronyism was an inherent part of the Roman political structure. But this appointment proved deadly.

What started the Jewish revolt?

Florus immediately began publicising his support for the Hellenist population of Judaea and his enmity for the Jews. After a Hellenist tainted the ritual purity of a synagogue in the coastal city of Caesarea, Florus demanded eight talents from the Jewish petitioners to address their grievances. Not only did Florus spurn their protests, but he had them imprisoned.

Behind these Hellenic-Jewish tensions was emperor Nero. Having withdrawn civil rights for Judaeans and granted a tax remission for Greece, one of the richest provinces in the empire, Jews responded by refusing to pay Roman taxes. By 66 AD, Nero’s extravagant lifestyle was too much. His actions cost him dearly.

Determined to break this tax rebellion, Florus stole seventeen talents from the Temple in Jerusalem. This was a fatal miscalculation. Civil resistance erupted into revolutionary fervour in the regions beyond Jerusalem and Caesarea. Throughout the province, local militias tore down the apparatus of Roman rule. Even the great fortress of Masada was caught off-guard and overrun by the sicarii, ‘dagger men’. Only the Syrian legions under Cestius Gallus were in a position to reclaim Roman honour.

The eagle standard

Rome was on the warpath. Gallus could not let the humiliation at Masada go unpunished. Mustering the legions, led by the ‘Thunderbolt’ Twelfth Fulminata, Gallus launched a lightning campaign against the rebels. Within a few short months, the Romans had recaptured Sepphoris, Acre and Caesarea. They descended rapidly upon Jerusalem. But Gallus had become complacent following his recent success.

Underestimating the ferocity of Jewish resistance, he sent forth the ‘Thunderbolt’ legion, with the support of vexillationes – temporary task forces assembled ad hoc. But even with auxiliary detachments, the Romans lacked the necessary strength to besiege Jerusalem. Gallus had no choice but to retreat. A Zealot ambush lay in wait.

Eleazar ben Simon, the Zealot leader, had been patient. He knew even a Roman legion, mighty on the battlefield, would yield to guerrilla warfare. As the Romans retreated from Jerusalem with the same blinding speed as they had advanced, he watched as he lured the legion to its doom. Passing by the rocky pass of Beth Horon, the trap was sprung.

Surrounded and outnumbered, the Romans stood no chance. With arrows raining down upon them, 6,000 Romans reportedly fell. Though Gallus was not among the dead, his campaign had ended in disgrace. The legion’s eagle standard was in enemy hands. According to the ancient historian Josephus, the great shame of this defeat contributed to Gallus’ death a year later. This resounding defeat sent shockwaves throughout the region; more and more Judaean cities joined the rebels’ cause. The conflict had escalated into full-scale war.

Vespasian

Nero was determined to crush the great Judaean revolt as emphatically as Boudicca’s uprising in Britannia five years earlier. In the commander Vespasian, he had made a shrewd choice. Vespasian was an experienced commander who had spearheaded the invasion of Britain in 43 Ad. However, the pick also gave Nero the opportunity to act on his personal displeasure towards the man. Vespasian had reportedly nodded off during one of the emperor’s tiresome lyre performances.

As Nero wiled away his days in Greece, Vespasian sailed for Judaea. By April 67 AD, four legions plus auxiliaries from King Agrippa II regrouped under Vespasian’s command at Ptolemais (modern day Acre, or Akko). Koined by his son Titus and 60,000 troops, Vespasian began the campaign that would ultimately see him mould a new imperial dynasty.

Vespasian leading his forces against the Jewish revolt, a miniature in a 1470 illuminated manuscript version of the history of Josephus.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Vespasian was a typical Roman general. Unlike the impatient Gallus who had underestimated the ferocity of Jewish resistance, Vespasian’s decision-making was measured. He realised the siege of Jerusalem was the endgame, but driving every last rebel back to the city necessitated a slow, systematic campaign targeting his enemy’s disunity between the elite and Zealot poor. He focused on the Jewish elite who were not prepared to fight to the death. Towns like Tiberias, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, and Sepphoris quickly surrendered. Other towns, like Jotapata, resisted.

Jotapata in the Jewish revolt

Surrounded by ravines and mountains the isolated town forced Vespasian to advance from the north. Indeed, the topographical challenges of this siege were a mere rehearsal for the colossal siege of Jerusalem yet to come. Battering rams, a siege ramp and three fifteen metre towers were erected to protect the besiegers.

Hopelessly outmatched but fuelled by patriotic and religious fervour, the defenders resorted to psychological warfare to repel the Romans. Despite Jotapata’s naturally limited water supply, the defenders wrung out their garments along the ramparts drenching the walls with water to convince the Romans of their resilience. But these mind games could hardly divert Roman wrath. Indeed, Vespasian’s injury from a defender’s dart only invigorated Roman determination.

After enduring 47 days of siege the defenders were exhausted and weak from lack of supplies. The siege ramp was completed but Vespasian opted for the stealthy approach. Supposedly Titus himself, along with a small group of Roman soldiers scrambled over the walls, took down the guards and the opened the gates to the legions. But take this version of events with a pinch of salt. Josephus, our source, was in fact the commander of military resistance in Galilee, and in his later text he was determined to justify his own treachery during the revolt.

Josephus tells us that the last forty defenders planned to commit mass suicide. One by one they drew lots and stabbed one another until only two were left. Josephus was one of them. But neither could complete the deed themselves. Instead they opted for languishing in a Roman gaol and lamenting their ignominious surrender.

The city of civil war

By early 68 AD all Jewish strongholds in the north had been eliminated. Vespasian, wintering at Caesarea Maritima, prepared for the summer campaigning in Idumea and Perea. Meanwhile the defeated rebels from Galilee, led by John of Gischala, retreated to the Temple.

Jerusalem was now a hotbed for extremists. Anyone suspected of surrendering was killed as the Zealots pillaged the population. Appalled by the Zealot atrocities, Ananus ben Ananus, a former high-priest and a prominent leader of the Judaean Free Government, conspired against them. Seizing the outer court of the Temple, Ananus turned the Holy City into a battleground. Ananus was determined to crush the Zealots and even appealed to Vespasian to besiege the city. Or so John claimed.

Ananus had made no such request of Vespasian. But the damage was done. Fearful of the onslaught of the legions, the Zealot messengers convinced the Edomites to the south to come to their aid. Against the 20,000 strong Edomites and the Temple stronghold, the uprising didn’t stand a chance. Massacre ensued with Ananus among the fallen. Jerusalem belonged to John and the Zealots.

Year of the Four Emperors

Jerusalem was in turmoil. But far to the west Rome was being rocked by a civil war of its own. Nero’s long list of crimes had finally caught up with him. In the spring of 68 ADE Vindex, the legate of Gallia Lugdunensis rose up in rebellion against Nero’s crippling taxes. He called on his counterpart Galba, in Hispania Tarraconensis, to take the throne. Vindex’s uprising was crushed by the Rhine legions. Denounced as a public enemy by the Senate, Galba, meanwhile, knew there was no turning back.

Nero’s comeuppance had long been overdue; our sources, at least, decried his tyranny and debauchery. Betrayed by his praetorian prefect Nymphidius, who backed Galba, Nero who was declared an enemy of the people. Fleeing Rome with just a handful of faithful freedmen he is supposed to have ended his life, mourning: “What an artist is about to perish!”

Far to the east, news of Nero’s death and the tumultuous succession reached Vespasian later that year. In July 69 AD, Vespasian decided to proclaim himself emperor, too, in Alexandria. He left his son Titus to finish off the revolt in Judaea.

News of Alexander’s death triggered a mutiny to regain the city’s liberty. The revolt pitched Athens against the forces of a superpower and plunged mainland Greece into anarchy.

The Macedonians in Athens

In 434 BC Athens was the mightiest metropolis of the Mediterranean. It was the nucleus of an Aegean empire and its Acropolis gleamed with monuments. But one hundred years later, everything had changed. Athens no longer ruled the waves. Instead that responsibility rested with its northern neighbour: Macedonia.

King Philip II ascended the Macedonian throne in 359 BC. Having learnt much during his itinerant youth, Philip transformed Macedonia from an underdeveloped backwater into a formidable power. Over 20 years, Thrace, Paeonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Illyria and the Chalkidike fell under Philip’s influence. This was just the beginning. Philip then turned his attention south, towards Athens. Alongside several other city-states, Athens attempted to resist Macedonia, but a decisive defeat at Chaeronea in 338 BC ended their struggle. Athens had a new master.

Philip’s success at Chaeronea proved the zenith of his kingship. Barely two years later Philip was dead, murdered at his daughter’s wedding. Power passed to his eldest, battle-proven son: Alexander. Relations between Alexander and Athens were uneasy. Many of its citizens mourned the city’s past and many resented Macedonia’s control. But such unease was tempered by the reality of Macedonian protection, which ensured Athens enjoyed rare peace and prosperity.

Alexander’s rule set the stage for Athens’ prolonged peace, but it was the tireless work of statesmen within the city which ensured it lasted. Phocion was probably more responsible for this than any other. Born into a noble Athenian family after the Peloponnesian War, Phocion cultivated an unrivalled reputation. He had received a stellar education as a pupil of both Plato and Xenocrates, while he had held military commands from a young age. A skilled orator and capable commander, Phocion aimed to emulate Athenian heroes such as Pericles, Miltiades and Aristides.

Initially Phocion had zealously opposed Philip’s expansion. Yet following defeat at Chaeronea, the statesman recognised that Athens’ best interests did not lie in fighting to the last in a hopeless war. Skilfully mediating between his home city and Macedonia, Phocion became greatly admired by both sides. His oratory secured support from the Athenians, while his conciliatory tone earned him the respect of both Philip and Alexander. By 324 BC, Phocion’s achievements had established him as one of the greatest statesmen of the age.

But in 324 BC, this period of stability became seriously strained.

Harpalus on the horizon

In the spring of that year, Athenian guards spotted an armada on the horizon. The fleet belonged to Harpalus, a senior Macedonian official and former favourite of Alexander, renowned for his love of luxuries. By 324 BC, the friendship had turned sour. Fearful of Alexander’s criticism of his decadent governing style, Harpalus embezzled a small fortune from the royal treasury and took a small army to Athens.

Fearing Alexander’s anger at his decadent approach to governing, Harpalus embezzled a small fortune from the royal treasury, gathered a small army and set sail for Athens. A wealthy, powerful, but isolated fugitive. Harpalus’ armada of 6,000 battle hardened mercenaries, 60 warships, plus transport and supply ships approached Athens seeking entry.

In a rare show of unity, the Athenians denied the request. The corrupt Macedonian appeared to be attempting to seize their city. Having sailed south, Harpalus deposited his mercenary army at the southernmost tip of the Peloponnese. He then returned to Athens as a suppliant, keeping his small fortune close. Using bribes to placate the Athenians, the corrupt Macedonian was admitted in June or early July, 324 BC.

The arrival of the Macedonian fugitive and his treasure presented an opportunity. Finally Athenians might have the resources to raise an effective army and throw off the Macedonian yoke. Phocion and his supporters were less convinced. Even Demosthenes, one of Athens’ most bellicose statesmen, was wary. They resolved to detain Harpalus and confiscate his treasury. Hypereides waited for another opportunity.

Exile amnesty

The atmosphere in Athens was tense. Over the next month, three separate Macedonian missions arrived demanding Harpalus face the king’s justice. They were rejected. Harpalus was there to stay, a useful bargaining chip in any upcoming dispute with Macedonia. Not long after Harpalus’ arrival, many Greeks travelled to Olympia for its famous games. Many had also followed rumours that a significant announcement was to be made, authorised by Alexander himself.

Indeed, during the games a certain Nicanor, loyal subordinate to Alexander, took centre stage and declared:

King Alexander to the exiles from the Greek cities. We were not the cause of your exile, but we shall be responsible for bringing about your return to your native cities, except for those of you who are under a curse. We have written to Antipater about this matter so that he may apply compulsion to those cities which refuse to reinstate their exiles.

Diodorus Siculus, 18.8.2-7

Cheers erupted when Nicanor finished speaking. Alexander had ordered all exiles be reinstated into their home cities; any past sins they may have committed were washed away. The decree was well-received by many. For Athens it was disastrous.

The Samos situation

In the proclamation was a special clause targeted at Athens, regarding the city of Samos. Since 366 BC, the city had been an Athenian satellite. Among Samos’ population were a significant number of Athenian settlers who retained their home city’s citizenship and ensured the colony remained closely-aligned. Alexander’s announcement put this arrangement in jeopardy.

By demanding that all Greek cities reinstate their exiles, this included the large number of exiled Samians who had sought support from Alexander for the return of their city. Their pleas had convinced the Macedonian king to act, determining that Athenian control of Samos – one of the last links to its imperial past – would end. Anger erupted in Athens, fuelling a blazing fire of anti-Macedonian sentiment. Still, Phocion and the Athenians attempted to negotiate.

It appears a compromise was initially reached: the Athenians could keep Samos, so long as they handed over Harpalus to Alexander. But Harpalus’ suspicious escape from Athens ensured this compromise fell through. At the beginning of 323 BC Alexander delivered a stinging reproach to Athenian pleas: Samos belonged to the Samians. Athenian discontent intensified.

Death of the king

On 11 June 323 BC, Alexander the Great succumbed to a mysterious illness and died. In his lifetime he had conquered the mighty Persian Empire and lead his armies as far as the Beas River in India Yet his death at 32 with no clear heir plunged his empire into turmoil, sparking conflict and chaos from east to west. Greek mercenaries in the east revolted and began their long journey home. In Babylon itself, a power struggle erupted pushing Alexander’s kingdom to the brink of civil war.

In Athens, Hypereides and his followers used the rumours to their advantage, playing on resentment to encourage revolt. Phocion must have known that Athenian appetite for war was now insatiable. Yet experience had taught him to remain cautious. Twelve years earlier, similar rumours had provoked the nearby city of Thebes to massacre the Macedonian militia. Athens had avoided joining thanks largely to Phocion’s efforts. Alexander’s response to the Theban revolt had been swift and brutal.

Phocion advised the policy that had served him so well over his career: caution: “If he is dead today, he will be dead tomorrow.” In the autumn of 323 BC, a ship arrived in Piraeus, Athens’ port. Among the ship’s passengers were men from Babylon who confirmed Alexander’s death.

While a desire to revolt hardened, Phocion and the Athenian property owners (the citizens who Athens would force to fund the fighting) remained hesitant. They had benefited from Macedonian overlordship. Was Athens ready to throw this all away?

Enter Leosthenes

Phocion and his supporters still had influence in the Athenian assembly. Yet Hypereides had planned to ensure his peoples’ eagerness to engage the enemy could not be curbed. The demagogue introduced to the Athenians a dashing young general called Leosthenes. Although Athenian by birth, Leosthenes had spent little time inside his home city. When Alexander began his expedition against the Persians in 334 BC, Leosthenes served as a Greek mercenary and saw action in at least one of Alexander’s most famous battles.

It is not certain which side Leosthenes actually fought for. Did he fight among Alexander’s ranks or was he one of the dissatisfied Greeks to side with the Persian king Darius? We do know that by 324 BC, Leosthenes loathed Alexander. While Alexander completed his brutal Indian campaign, Leosthenes began his rise to prominence.

Depiction of hoplites confronting a Persian horseman.

Image Credit: Public Domain

Harpalus’ corruption had been just the tip of an iceberg. Many officials had used their resources to raise powerful, personal armies. At the core of these forces were Greek mercenaries. On returning from India, Alexander ordered that they be disbanded, and suddenly thousands of Greek soldiers found themselves unemployed. To the west a camp emerged specifically for professional soldiers seeking service. The base was situated in southern Greece at Taenarum, south of the Peloponnese and beyond Macedonian reach.

Over the next few months various commanders led their mercenary bands west. By summer 324 BC, Taenarum was home to some 8,000 soldiers. It was with this force that Leosthenes came to the fore. Soon after gathering in Taenarum, the charismatic Leosthenes was elected as their leader.

Athens crosses its Rubicon

Leosthenes’ hatred of Macedonia was no secret and he soon attracted the attention of Hypereides. Both sought a war of liberation, but they also knew that discretion was vital. Leosthenes received gold and silver from his Athenian backers and covertly commenced enrolling his comrades for service. His ranks swelled with soldiers.

As rumours of Alexander’s death were confirmed in Athens, Hypereides introduced Leosthenes to the Athenian assembly. Led by this proven commander and funded by Harpalus’ seized treasure, Hypereides made convincing arguments to refute lingering Athenian concerns. Swept away by Hypereides and Leosthenes, the Athenians decided on war. Leosthenes and his men marched through Athens, but the parade did not convince everyone. Phocion admitted the force looked formidable, but where were the reserves? War is rarely a sprint, but a marathon.

Nonetheless, the decision had been made. Leosthenes, Hypereides and the Athenians had crossed their Rubicon. The war to regain their independence had begun.