AHB 23 (2009) 19-31

CONSPIRATORS COMPANIONS - BODYGUARDS:

A NOTE ON THE SO-CALLED MERCENARIES SOURCE AND THE
CONSPIRACY OF BESSUS (CURT. 5.8.111)
*


Jacek Rzepka

It seems obvious to the author that there are interesting parallels between Curtius
narrative of the conspiracy of Bessus against Darius, and especially of Patrons role in
this affair, and the Philotas affair, the most famous conspiracy, and subsequent political
trial, which took place during Alexanders expedition. In the former conspiracy Darius
did not believe the informer who revealed the conspiracy among his staff, and, as a
consequence, he lost his life. In the latter case Philotas did not inform the king about a
conspiracy he had heard of, and Alexander only escaped danger thanks to knowledge
about it which he received from another informer. The failure of Philotas to inform the
king of the plot may partly be explained by his fathers previous false warning of a plot
by Philip the Acarnanian to poison Alexander. These parallels have so far been rather
overlooked in Alexander scholarship, and the purpose of this article is to examine them.
These resemblances furthermore re-open the question of which sources were available to
Curtius, when reporting the last weeks of Darius III, and it is to this question we first
turn.
Quintus Curtius Rufus narrative of the last weeks of Darius III is believed to be
untrustworthy in many respects. Some of the events leading to Bessus coup dtat are
held to be no more than literary fiction. For example the meeting of the Persian
commanders at Ecbatana is considered to be one of the least plausible episodes. Modern
commentator, however, make a favorable exception for the role of Patron the Phocian
1
,
a mercenary commander who revealed the conspiracy of Bessus and Nabarzanes to
Darius, and who is sometimes supposed to be one of the authors responsible for the
picture of Alexanders campaign we get from the Persian camp, one of the persons
behind the so-called mercenaries source. It would be only reasonable to assume that
Patron the Phocian plays a key role in Curtius account because his report formed the
key source utilized by that author.
The existence of a mercenaries source was once suggested by Julius KAERST
2
; but the
theory was expanded by William Woodthorpe TARN, who made the mercenaries source

* All three-figure dates in this paper are B.C., unless otherwise indicated. Translations of Greek and
Latin authors are usually LCL ones. However, there was, as often, a need to standardise termini technici
variously rendered by the original translators.
1
How little can be said on Patron is manifest in T. Lenschau, RE 18 (1949) 2291, s.v. Patron 5.
2
Julius Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus vol. I
3
, Leipzig 1927, 544: Und dann drfen wir, einer
Vermutung von Ranke folgend, noch einem besonderem Grund fr diese Griechenfreundlichkeit daraus
herleiten, da die Quelle Diodors Informationen aus dem Lager der hellenischen Sldner, die fr Dareios
gekmpft htten, erhalten haben wird. Cf. L. von Ranke, Universal History vol. 1: The Oldest Historical
Group of Nations and the Greeks, New York 1885, 422.
Jacek Rzepka

Page 20

the only account of Alexanders campaigns as seen from the Persian side. TARN believed
that the mercenaries source was not utilized by the majority of Alexanders historians, but
was exploited by both Diodorus and Curtius
3
. Under the influence of TARNs book the
existence of the mercenaries source gained for a while the status of the scholarly communis
opinio. The first and most definite refutation of the mercenaries source came from the pen
of Lionel PEARSON who denied its existence
4
. PEARSON criticized TARN for taking the
silence of some of the sources (Arrian and Plutarch notably) as proof that they had no
access to a source reflecting the feelings and the actions of Greek mercenaries in Persian
service, and accused him of an attempt to build up the character of this unknown
author whose object is to tell the story of mercenaries, as well as of selective use of a
number of isolated details from Diodorus (p. 80). Equally disparaging was the criticism
of Peter BRUNT that the imaginary mercenaries source need not have been the only
version of Alexanders war accessible to the ancient historians of Alexander from the
Persian side, and that some of the information alleged to come from the mercernaries
source, such as the details of the Persian array at Gaugamela, could have been generally
known. He also argued that access to the mercenaries source was not restricted to the
followers of Clitarchus
5
. BRUNT finally suggested that the account of Darius end could
have been inspired by oral communication from loyal Persians or from mercenaries (p.
153). Yet he stopped his discussion of TARNs theory short of the romantic stories of
Darius last days, which he held to have been invented by Curtius.
A conciliatory approach was proposed by Rotraut WOLF who argued that it was
Cleitarchus who had transmitted to later Alexanders historians the oral tradition of
Darius Greek mercenaries
6
. WOLFs conclusions are followed with some reserve by
John ATKINSON
7
. This leading expert on Curtius, specifically referring to his account of
the conspiracy of Bessus, stresses that on the conspiracy against Darius the ultimate
source could just as well have been Persians who abandoned Bessus and surrendered to
Alexander: they had good reason to distance themselves from the actions of Bessus and
Nabarzanes
8
. Another Curtius specialist, Elizabeth BAYNHAM, reduced the

3
W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great vol. 2, Cambridge 1948, 71-75 and 105-6.
4
L. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great, New York 1960, 78-82.
5
P.A. Brunt, Persian Accounts of Alexanders Campaigns, CQ NS 12 (1962) 141-55.
6
R. Wolf, Die Soldatenerzhlungen des Kleitarch bei Quintus Curtius Rufus (Diss. Wien 1963). The results of
Wolf were wholly accepted by her Doktorvater F. Schachermeyr, Alexander der Grosse. Das Problem seiner
Persnlichkeit und seines Wirkens (Sitz. Wien 285) Wien 1973, 196, n. 214. P. Goukowsky, Diodore de Sicile:
Bibliothque historique Livre XVII, Paris 1976, xxvi-xxviii, follows Wolf. He adds his own explanation of
how the Soldatenerzhlungen of both sides reached young Cleitarchus studying at Athens.
7
J. Atkinson, Q. Curtius Rufus Historiae Alexandri Magni, ANRW 34.4 (1997), 3447-83, at 3462.
Actually, Atkinson has suggested briefly some conciliatory ideas which are now referred to Wolfs book
already in 1963 (Primary Sources and the Alexandereich, AC 6 (1963), 125-37, at 133-4).
8
J. E. Atkinson, A Commentary on Q. Curtius Rufus Historiae Alexandri Magni. Books 5 to 7.2,
Conspirators Companions - Bodyguards

Page 21

conversation between Darius, Patron and the Persian council as reported by Curtius
(5.8.6-9) to the level of a philosophical digression
9
.
However, there are other scholars who continue to admit that there could have been a
mercenaries source, and others who indeed insist on its existence. It has been suggested,
furthermore, that Patron the Phocian himself may have either supplied a verbal account
of the Bessus Conspiracy, which was subsequently recorded by the mercenaries source, or
may himself have left a literary account, which constitutes wholly or in part the
mercenaries source
10
. Even so, the theory of a mercenaries source still has no general
acceptance
11
.
The modern reader cannot fail to be surprised by the vast amount of space that
Curtius devotes to Patrons warning and to Darius refusal to take action against Bessus
and Nabarzanes. BAYNHAMs proposal to reduce this episode to a philosophical
controversy introduced by Curtius himself may be attractive, but it is not the only
possible explanation. Why then, one should ask, did Curtius write so much about
Patron? The latter is a person otherwise practically unknown
12
. Why was he elevated by

Amsterdam 1994, 134, cf.: the studies quoted in the previous note.
9 E. J. Baynham, Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius, Ann Arbor 1998, 112-3; cf.
also J.E. Atkinson, Originality and its Limits in the Alexander Sources of the Early Empire, in: A. B.
Bosworth and E.J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford 2000, 307-26, at 319-26,
with an argument for novel elements in Curtius accounts of conspiracies at the Macedonian court.
10 To my knowledge it was N.V. Sekunda, The Persian Army 560-330 BC, Oxford 1992, 30, who first
suggested, briefly, but firmly, that Patron was one of the authors behind the mercenaries source. E.
Badian (Darius III, HSCP 100 (2000), 241-67 at 262-3) thinks that the account of the Bessus conspiracy
may be based on the report by Patron, and (in Conspiracies, in: A. B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham
(eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford 2000, 50-95, at 86-7) states that These and similar
items are obviously Curtiuss own, decorating the basic account from Patron and that Our information
comes mainly, as has often been conjectured, from the Greek mercenaries and their leader Patron leaving
it unclear whether he considers Patron to be a literary or oral source. He furthermore raises some doubts
as to the credibility of his account (Conspiracies, 86, n. 70: He and his mercenaries would not only
have had no idea of what Persian nobles had been discussing among themselves, but would have had to
find an explanation for their final desertion of Darius and the lateness of their surrender). See also O.
Battistini, Sources de lhistoire dAlexandre le Grand, in : O. Battistini & P. Chauvet, Alexandre le
Grande : Histoire et dictionnaire, Paris 2004, 968-971, at 968 (with some hesitation).
11 Scholars who do not explain away doubts about the veracity of Curtius Rufus account by literary
conventions followed and its philosophical content still try to demolish the mercenaries source theory on
factual grounds. Thus P. Briant, Darius dans lombre dAlexandre, Paris 2003, 192-3 starts his argument from
the standpoint that Darius is said to have been unable to understand any language but Persian, he
therefore denies the truthfulness of the account (197-8), and finally concludes that the mercenaries source
nest rien dautre quun fantme.
12 The identity of Patron and the Paron of the manuscripts in Arr. 3, 16, 1 has to be accepted, but little
more can be added; cf.: A. Schaefer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit vol. 32, Leipzig 1887, 173; cf. Lenschau,
RE 18 (1949) 2291; H. Berve, Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (Mnchen 1926):
Prosopographie no. 612.
Jacek Rzepka

Page 22

Curtius (or his source) to play the role of a wise, though repeatedly ignored, warner
13
? Is
this really mere convention? A sophisticated play with motives? Or, maybe, someone
had an interest in inserting the Patron episode into the story?
The best-known example of Curtius unequal treatment of the events of
Alexanders reign is, of course, the amount of space he devotes to the Philotas affair. It is
especially instructive for our understanding of Curtius historical methods, since we can
compare his treatment of the event with ways in which the other Alexanders historians
presented the end of Philotas
14
. In Curtius the Philotas affair
15
is the central event of
Alexanders clashes with his generals in Curtius (6.7-11.40 and 7.1.1-5), whereas the
other ancient historians of Alexander tend to focus on the Cleitus affair.
The deaths of Philotas and his father and the end of Cleitus at the hands of Alexander
to this day provide the basis for any negative assessment of Alexanders reign. All
scholars preoccupied with diminishing the greatness of Alexander invariably go back to
Curtius description of the end of Philotas
16
. No ancient historian of Alexander conceals
that Philotas was not guilty of having taken part of the Dimnus conspiracy, and that his
actual crime was to have failed to defend the king properly by not revealing the
conspiracy to the monarch immediately. In these circumstances we can be certain that
Alexander and his friends were well aware of the danger which the elimination of
Philotas meant for the royal image (even if the intrigues leading to the death of Philotas
were not coldly planned several months before his trial).

13 Such a role would have been well known to the readers of Herodotus, whose influence on Curtius
(without the intervention of Cleitarchus) is now acknowledged, see J. Blnsdorf, Herodot bei Curtius
Rufus, Hermes 99 (1971), 11-24; W. Heckel, One more Herodotus reminiscence in Curtius Rufus,
Hermes 107 (1979), 122-3. Curtius imitatio Herodoti includes the way he presents the Persian army in 3, 2,
2-3; the ill-omened visions that threatened Darius (3, 3, 2-7); but also, most importantly, the counsel given
by Charidemus of Oreus, a naturalized Athenian, as an exile in Persian service to Darius (3, 2, 10-19) a
role which parallels that of the exiled Spartan king Demaratus in Herodotus. For the Charidemus episode
cf.: E. Baynham, Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius, 136-40.
14 A striking statistic can be found in E. Kapetanopoulos, Alexanders Patrius Sermo in the Philotas
Affair, AncW 30/2 (1999), 117-28, 117-8 (619 LCL lines in Curtius against 32 lines in Arrian and 86 in
Plutarch); cf.: A.B. Bosworth, Introduction, in: A. B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the
Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford, 1-22, 11 (over twenty pages of Bud text).
15 Badian, Conspiracies passim and esp. 70-2 denies existence of most conspiracies against
Alexander illustrated in our sources (an exception is the Pages conspiracy). Instead, he makes Alexander
and his closest friends the busiest conspirators of Macedonia from 336 to 323 BC.
16 E. Badian, The Death of Parmenio, TAPhA 91 (1960) 324-38; P. Green, Alexander of Macedon,
London 1974, 339-49; a far more balanced account of Alexanders actions against Philotas is given by
another historian who is far from being an enthusiast of Philips son, R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great,
London 1973, 288-91 (p. 289: It is absurd to idealize him [i.e. Philotas] as a martyr to Alexanders
ruthlessness simply because the histories explain so little).
Conspirators Companions - Bodyguards

Page 23

It is generally accepted that Philotas only error was not to notify the king about the
Dimnus conspiracy he had learnt about. It may seem an irony of history (or
historiography) that a tale preserved by three of the Alexander historians makes Philotas
father a false informer. Parmenio warned Alexander about an attempt to poison him
(Plut., Alex. 19; Arr., Anab. 2.4.8-11; Curt. 3.6.1-20
17
). Notwithstanding minor
discrepancies
18
, the historians agree that Parmenio attacked Alexanders most trusted
physician, Philip of Acarnania (BERVE no. 788). Alexander is held to have drunk an
allegedly poisonous cure which proved Philip not guilty. The king was convinced that
Parmenio had plotted against one of his most intimate friends, and this intrigue (or
mistake) brought disgrace on him. It has been suggested that the story may have been
invented by Philotas (or by his epigone admirer) to explain his failure to inform
Alexander of the Dimnus conspiracy: Parmenios son tried to behave cautiously so as to
avoid the risk of bringing another charge against innocent men
19
. In actual fact Curtius
reports that Philotas tried to exculpate himself in front of the assembled Macedonians by
remembering the false and distrusted accusation against Philip by Parmenio (Curt.
6.10.33-35). Parmenios attack on Philip of Acarnania receives, as usual, a longer
treatment by Curtius Rufus, who seems to have known a lot about the man, and who
characterizes him as very close to the king. Moreover, the Latin historian, while
introducing Philip, in a unusual way exploits motives of companionship and loyalty by
repeating words he uses elsewhere to designate the kings companions (Curt. 3.6.1: Erat
inter nobiles medicos ex Macedonia regem secutus Philippus, natione Acarnan, fidus admodum
regi: puero comes et custos salutis datus non ut regem modo sed etiam ut alumnum eximia caritate
diligebat - Among the famous physicians who had followed the king from Macedonia
was Philip, a native of Acarnania, most loyal to Alexander, made the kings companion
and the guardian of his health from boyhood, he loved him with extreme affection, not
only as his king, but even as a foster-king)
20
.

17 Diodorus (17.31.4-6) tells the same story without any mention of Parmenios involvement in the
affair; most likely so because of his abridgement of the sources.
18 Curtius makes Alexander take Philips medicine three days after he had received Parmenios letter.
Badian, Conspiracies, 60-1 rightly recognises this variant as a duplicate of the three days Alexander
needed to recover, after Philips remedy had been applied.
19 P. Treves, Philippos (63), RE 19.2 (1938) 2549-50: Es (i.e. the story of Parmenions intervention
against Philip) ist vielleicht ad maiorem gloriam Parmenions und damit, stillschweigend, zum Tadel
Alexanders erfunden oder ad maiorem gloriam einerseits der Geisteshhe des Knigs, andererseits der
Treue und Vorsicht des Parmenions. N.G.L. Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great,
Cambridge 1983, 121, makes Cleitarchus the intermediary source. Cf.: W. Heckel, King and
Companions, in: J. Roisman (ed.) Brills Companion to Alexander the Great, Leiden-Boston 2003, 197-225
at 214.
20 According to Diodorus (17.31.6) the elevation of Philip to the circle of the closest Friends of the
king was due to the fact he had been able to cure him (tcv utov c tou civcotutou tv iv-
and assigned him to the most trusted among the Friends). Also Plutarch (Alex. 19.6) does not
Jacek Rzepka

Page 24

I cannot agree that the event is wholly invented: one should ask why was it that Philip
of Acarnania (and none of the great Macedonian nobles) was chosen to be the
instrument to exculpate Philotas? Most likely then, the story mirrors, in some way at
least, a real event: there was certainly a serious illness of Alexander and his
miraculous recovery after the medical intervention by Philip. A conflict between the
senior marshal of Alexander and his mothers most trusted doctor
21
is also plausible. We
can be sure that Parmenio was not (as for example Ernst BADIAN would like) an
innocent victim of an ancient Stalin
22
. The most questionable part of the legend is,
surely, the content of Parmenios letter denouncing Philip. One cannot be certain if the
written accusation is not also a fabrication. Curtius has been criticised for making
Parmenio send a letter to the king, because Arrian (2.4.4) indicates that the whole of the
Macedonian army was together at that time
23
. Parmenio may have not wanted,
however, to speak openly against Philip in the presence of Alexanders medical staff, in
which Philip played first fiddle. Nothing speaks, therefore, against a written
denunciation conveyed to Alexander by a friend of Parmenio or less likely by Parmenio
himself
24
.
The question is whether Philotas himself recalled it as an excuse during his trial (that
would mean that he confessed he had been informed about the Dimnus conspiracy) or
whether later critics of Alexander tried to exculpate Philotas and thus lay the blame on
Alexander
25
. Of course, the very sympathetic treatment of the Acarnanian in Curtius
may suggest that his picture of the physician is inherited from Alexander or his
entourage, rather than from Philotas.

necessarily mean that Philip belonged to the Companions/Friends of Alexander (this is not the place to
discuss whether the bodies labeled in our sources as hetairoi or philoi fully overlapped: this problem
deserves much more space and a separate treatment).
21 The Acarnanian origin of Philip and his care over Alexander in the latters boyhood hint that he
was originally employed by Olympias.
22 E. Badian, The Death of Parmenio, 324-38 omits the story of Parmenios intrigue against Philip.
By the way, it is worth remembering that most of the victims of Stalins purge of communist leaders were
not so innocent themselves.
23 Berve, no. 788.
24 Let us note that also Cebalinus looked (twice) for a suitable moment to bring news of the Dimnus
conspiracy secretly through an individual member of Alexanders staff (through Philotas: Curt. 6.7.17-18;
Diod.17.79.2-3 and then Metron: Curt. 6.7.22-3; Diod. 17.79.4-6). There is a slight difference of emphasis
between Diodorus and Curtius, who report the same event. Diodorus stresses that Cebalinus tried to pass
his news as soon as possible through the first trusted person he met, whereas Curtius, who also
understands that Philotas was involved by chance (Curt. 6.7.18: forte), underscores that Cebalinus had to
wait for an opportunity of a secret talk with one person.
25 However, it cannot be excluded that the content of Philotas speech is Curtius invention. The
controversy over the historicity of speeches included in Curtius (and in ancient historians generally) never
ends. Admittedly, the majority view is that most speeches and letters in historians are not authentic.
Conspirators Companions - Bodyguards

Page 25

If the episode of Philip of Acarnania was used by those who wanted to defend
Philotas, the king and his adherents certainly tried to present counter-arguments. It
seems that the spurious plot of Philip the Acarnanian was used, in intra-Macedonian
political discourse, as an excuse for the inactivity of Philotas in the face of the Dimnus
conspiracy: this was counter-balanced by a real and successful conspiracy of Bessus
against Darius III. The far-reaching symmetry in the way Curtius Rufus presents the
conspiracy of Bessus and the Philotas affair is striking. Both episodes are presented by
Curtius at length, with many details unknown to, or omitted by, other historians of
Alexander. Thus in the Philotas affair we have a plot of (ordinary) Macedonians known
to a Macedonian nobleman. This nobleman estimated the importance of the conspiracy
as low, and did not warn his king. In the conspiracy against Darius, which began only a
few months earlier, Curtius describes a plot of noble Persians that was rightly uncovered
from the inside by the Greek mercenary commander Patron. Up to that moment both
stories look similar. Yet Patron of Phocis proved himself loyal to Darius and uncovered
Bessus conspiracy (the first difference between the stories). Darius reaction to the news
was also strange. The Achaemenid king refused to punish Nabarzanes and Bessus, since
he tried to think the best of his followers.
Thus, we have two different, yet corresponding ways in which the information about
conspiracies is uncovered, and the way in which the two monarchs react to the
information results differs too. Darius childish belief in the innocence of his aristocrats
caused his premature death, whereas Alexanders cold decision to foil all plots against
him saved his life. Was this not a good reason for a preventive slaughter of his
aristocrats?
26

Both the striking similarities and the direct contrasts are hardly accidental, although
neither similarities nor contrasts prove that the account of Darius last days as we have
them portrayed in Curtius Rufus was created to explain Alexanders action against
Philotas. Yet, if we read both accounts throughout, we can notice more resemblances,
both in diction and in the terminology used.
As I suggested above, already Curtius description of Philip of Acarnania focuses on
his intimacy with Alexander: we can see then the triple statement of Philips relation to
Alexander: erat secutus (had followed), comes (a companion), custos (a guardian). It is
a rather unusual concentration, and one should note that the terms comes (comites) and
custos (custodes) do not recur too often in Curtius Rufus. When used in a Macedonian
context
27
, the word is generally narrowed to custos (custodes, custodia) corporis and usually

26 Here I have to agree with E. Badian, Conspiracies, 53-75 that Alexander sometimes (re-)acted
against conspiracies that did not exist.
27 In a Persian context custodia corporis can refer to Darius elite cavalry (Curt. 3.9.4) or any larger
bodyguard formation (Curt. 6.4.9).
Jacek Rzepka

Page 26

denotes a somatophylakes of Alexander (see 4.13.19; 6.7.15; 6.11.8; 8.6.21; 9.6.4; 9.8.23;
10.6.1, but cf. ex armigeris 6.8.17). Let us note that the assembly deliberating on Philotas
crime was incited by Alexanders bodyguards
28
, who were also most persistent in
demanding capital punishment for Parmenios son.
Of course, Curtius rendering of Greek terms into Latin sometimes can pose
problems; thus, custodia corporis sometimes refers to the Royal Pages (e.g. Curt. 5.1.42;
10.5.8), or, when it occurs in the composite form armigeri corporisque custodes (Curt.
8.1.2), it is rather difficult to decide which element describes the somatophylakes and
which the hetairoi.
Curtius also applies Latin translations of Greco-Macedonian court and army titles to
the barbarians at the Alexander court. For example Oxyathres, Darius brother (BERVE
586), was enlisted among custodes corporis (Curt. 7.5.40):

Et Alexander Oxathren, fratrem Darei, quem inter corporis custodes habebat,
propius iussit accedere tradique Bessum ei, ut cruci adfixum mutilatis auribus
naribusque sagittis configerent barbari adservarentque corpus, ut ne aves quidem
contingerent.

But Alexander ordered Oxathres, the brother of Darius, whom he had
among his bodyguards, to come nearer, and that Bessus be delivered to
him, in order that, bound to a cross after his ears and his nose had been
cut off, the barbarians might pierce him with arrows and so guard his body
that not even the birds could touch it.
It is worth stressing that the context in which Curtius introduces Oxyathres as a
corporis custos is not unrelated to a conspiracy. Although Oxyathres was made an extra
bodyguard of Alexander, he mutilates Bessus as Darius avenger, and thus puts an end
to the conspiracy that had destroyed his earlier sovereign
A little earlier, when Curtius mentions Oxyathres admission to the hetairoi, his
language is not strictly technical (Curt. 6.2.11): Oxydates erat nobilis Perses, qui a Dareo
capitali supplicio destinatus cohibebatur in vinculis; huic liberato satrapeam Mediae attribuit,
fratremque Darei recepit in cohortem amicorum omni vetustae claritatis honore servato
(Oxydates was a Persian noble who was being kept in bonds, because he had been
destined by Darius for capital punishment. Alexander freed him and conferred upon him
the satrapy of Media, and thus he received a brother of Darius into the band of his

28 Curt. 6.11.8: Tum vero universa contio accensa est, et a corporis custodibus initium factum clamantibus
discerpendum esse parricidam manibus eorum Then truly the whole assembly was inflamed, and a
beginning was made by the bodyguards, who shouted that the traitor ought to be torn to pieces by their
own hands.
Conspirators Companions - Bodyguards

Page 27

Friends with the maintenance of all the honour due to his ancient lineage). Curtius
renders here Greek rather imprecisely, cohors amicorum means the Companion Cavalry,
as can be inferred from a related passage of Plutarch Alexander (Plut., Alex. 43.7: tov o
ocov u0pqv c tou ctipou vccv - He admitted his [Darius] brother
Exathres to the Companions)
29
. Diodorus calls Oxyathres unit doryphoroi or rabdouchoi,
and is very explicit about its Persian character (17, 77, 4: ki ptov cv cpi tqv qv
poouou oicvc, cit tou civcotutou tv <oivv vopv oopuopcv
tcv, cv o v ki pciou oco u0pq - and Alexander had once Asian
wandbearers at the court, then he arrayed the best of the Asians as spearbearers, among
them was also Oxathres, the brother of Darius)
30
. There is no need to see in the hoi peri
ten aulen rabdouchoi aa another set of somatophylakes. Rather, they were an elite unit of the
army as e.g. the Royal Agema.
31

Curtius exploits the rhetorical possibilities provided by placing the word comes into a
certain context once again in his account of the case of Amyntas, who, having been
accused of high treason himself, accused his own brother Polemon of the same crime
(Curt. 7.2.6: Moveratque iam regem quoque, non contionem modo, sed unus erat implacabilis
frater, qui terribili vultu intuens eum Tum, ait demens, lacrimare debueras, cum equo calcaria
subderes, fratrum desertor et desertorum comes. Miser, quo et unde fugiebas? Effecisti, ut reus
capitis accusatoris uterer verbis. - And now he had affected the king also, and not only
the assembly, but his brother alone was inexorable, and gazing at him with a terrifying
expression exclaimed: Then, madman, is when you ought to have wept, when you were
applying spurs to your horse, a deserter of your brothers and a companion of deserters.
Wretch, whither were you fleeing and from whom? You have forced me, on trial for my
life, to use the words of an accuser.
Yet, the most striking analogy can be seen in Curtius account of the conspiracy of
Bessus against Darius (5.8.111). It will be necessary to quote the story of how Patron

29 I would not like to suggest by this that Alexanders Friends are identical with his Companions.
Rather, I believe that these two more or less formalized bodies partly overlapped, but that their
composition was different. I hope to return to this important problem in a separate study.
30 Not dissimilar is a case of four Sogdians serving as corporis custodes (Curt. 7, 10, 9).
31 These units in which Oxyathres served strongly suggest that the army of Alexander was never
intended to be a melting pot for the peoples of Alexanders empire. Rather, barbarian troops retained their
own organization, even if they had been taught the Macedonian way of fighting. See: P.A. Brunt,
Alexanders Macedonian Cavalry, JHS 83, 1963, 27-46, 45; A.B. Bosworth, Alexander and the
Iranians, JHS 100 (1980) 1-21; P.A. Brunt, Arrian. Anabasis of Alexander (Loeb Classical Library), vol. 2,
Cambridge, Mass. 1983, 220 (in commentary on Arr., Anab. 7, 6, 2-5); E. Borza, Ethnicity and Cultural
Policy in Alexanders Court, AncW 23 (1992) 21-5; 21 (= C.G. Thomas (ed.), Makedonika: Essays by
Eugene N. Borza, Claremont, 1995, 149-158). N.G.L. Hammond, The Text and the Meaning of Arrian vii
6.2-5, JHS 103, 1983, 139-144, arguing for the integration of Asians into mixed units is far from being
convincing (he apparently is inspired by W.W. Tarns idea of Alexander striving for the unity of mankind.
Jacek Rzepka

Page 28

revealed the plot to Darius. Great emphasis was laid on the ranks and titles used in
Darius army and court:

(5.11.1) Patron autem, Graecorum dux, praecipit suis, ut arma, quae in sarcinis
antea ferebantur, induerent ad omne imperium suum parati et intenti. (2) Ipse
currum regis sequebatur occasioni imminens adloquendi eum: quippe Bessi facinus
praesenserat. Sed Bessus id ipsum metuens, custos verius quam comes, a curru non
recedebat. (3) Diu ergo Patron cunctatus ac saepius sermone revocatus, inter fidem
timoremque haesitans regem intuebatur. (4) Qui ut tandem advertit oculos,
Bubacen spadonem inter proximos currum sequentem percontari iubet, numquid
ipsi velit dicere. Patron se vero, sed remotis arbitris loqui velle cum eo respondit
iussus que propius accedere sine interprete (5) nam haud rudis Graecae linguae
Dareus erat - Rex, inquit ex L milibus Graecorum supersumus pauci, omnis
fortunae tuae comites et in hoc tuo statu idem, qui florente te fuimus, quascumque
terras elegeris, pro patria et domesticis rebus petituri. Secundae adversaeque res
tuae copulavere nos tecum. (6) Per hanc fidem invictam oro et obtestor, in nostris
castris tibi tabernaculum statui, nos corporis tui custodes esse patiaris. Omisimus
Graeciam, nulla Bactra sunt nobis, spes omnis in te: utinam etiam ceteris esset!
Plura dici non attinet. Custodiam corporis tui externus et alienigena non
deposcerem, si crederem alium posse praestare.
(7) Bessus quamquam erat Graeci sermonis ignarus, tamen stimulante
conscientia indicium profecto Patronem detulisse credebat: et interpretes celato
sermone Graeci exempta dubitatio est. (8) Dareus autem, quantum ex voltu concipi
poterat, haud sane territus percontari Patrona causam consilii, quod adferret,
coepit. Ille non ultra differendum ratus Bessus inquit et Nabarzanes insidiantur
tibi: in ultimo discrimine et fortunae tuae et vitae hic dies aut parricidis aut tibi
futurus <est> ultimus.
(9) Et Patron quidem egregiam conservati regis gloriam tulerat. (10) Eludant
[vide] licet, quibus forte temere humana negotia volvi agique persuasum est;
<equidem fato crediderim> nexuque causarum latentium et multo ante
destinatarum suum quemque ordinem immutabili lege percurrere: (11) Dareus
certe respondit, quamquam sibi Graecorum militum fides nota sit, numquam
tamen a popularibus suis recessurum. Difficilius sibi esse damnare quam decipi.
Quicquid fors tulisset, inter suos perpeti malle quam transfugam fieri. Sero se
perire, si salvum esse milites sui nollent. (12) Patron desperata regis salute ad eos,
quibus praeerat, rediit omnia pro fide experiri paratus.

Conspirators Companions - Bodyguards

Page 29

(5.11.1) But Patron, the leader of the Greeks ordered his men to put on
their arms, which before were carried with the baggage, and to be ready
and on the alert for every order of his. (2) He himself was following the
kings chariot, eager for a chance to speak to him; for he had a
premonition of the evil design of Bessus. But Bessus, in fear of that very
thing, did not move from the chariot, acting as a guard rather than as a
companion. (3) Therefore Patron, after waiting for a long time and
often being restrained from speaking, kept his eyes fixed upon the king,
wavering between loyalty and fear. (4) When at last the king turned
towards him, he ordered Bubaces, a eunuch who was following the
chariot among the nearest Darius, to ask the Greek whether he wished to
say anything to him. Patron replied that he did in fact wish to talk with
him, but without witnesses, and when bidden to come nearer without an
interpreter for Darius was not unacquainted with the Greek language
he said: (5) My king, out of 50,000 Greeks we are the few that are left,
companions of all your fortune, and in your present state unchanged
from what we were in your prosperity, ready to seek, in place of our
native land and our homes, whatever lands you shall select. (6) Your
prosperity and adversity have linked us with you. By this invincible
loyalty I beg and conjure you, pitch your tent in our camp; suffer us to be
your bodyguards. We have abandoned Greece, no Bactra belong to us,
all our hope is in you; would that it were true also of the rest! It is
needless to say more. I, a foreigner and alien race should not demand the
guard of your person, if I believed that another could guarantee it.
(7) Although Bessus was unacquainted with the Greek language, yet,
pricked by conscience, he believed that Patron had surely revealed his
plot; and since the words of the Greek were concealed from interpreters,
any doubt was removed. (8) Darius, however, being so far as could be
inferred from his expression not at all alarmed, began to question Patron
as to the reason for the advice which he brought. The Greek, thinking
that there was no room for further delay, said Bessus and Nabarzanes
are plotting against you, your fortune and your life are in extreme
danger, this day will be the last for the traitors or for you.
(9) And in fact Patron had gained the illustrious glory of saving the
king. (10) Those may scoff at my belief who happily are convinced that
human affairs roll on and take place by mere chance, or that each man
runs his ordered course in accordance with a combination of hidden
causes determined long beforehand by an immutable law; (11) at any
rate, Darius replied that although the loyalty of the Greek soldiers was
Jacek Rzepka

Page 30

well known to him, yet he would never separate himself from his own
countrymen, that it was more difficult for him to condemn than to be
deceived. Whatever Fortune should offer him he preferred to endure
among his own subjects rather to become a deserter. He was perishing
too late, if his own soldiers did not wish him to be saved. (12) Patron,
despairing of the kings safety, returned to those whom he commanded,
prepared to submit to every possible trial to the best of his loyalty.

In this account we meet a false custos in the person of Bessus whereas the Greeks of
Darius, although loyal soldiers, were never admitted to the corporis custodia. As in other
cases (Philip of Acarnania, Polemon, Oxathres) the term is used non-technically.
Therefore the terms are used purely rhetorically. The prime suspect for the use of these
words seems to be Curtius Rufus. Yet we should notice that traces of the same type of
rhetoric can be found in other historians of Alexander the Great. The Greek original of
comes/comites, the word hetairos/hetairoi is strikingly absent from Diodorus XVII
(whereas he does use the term in books XVIII to XX, which are based on Hieronymus).
In Book XVII, the kings most trusted collaborators are invariably called philoi.
32

Companion cavalry is a few times referred to as hetairoi, but in a purely military sense
(17.77 and 100; cf. 17.37.2: hetairike hippos). What may surprise us is that Diodorus uses
the word to describe the court of Bessus (actually inherited from Darius)

Diod. 17.83:
ooo o utov vococie oic to 0co 0uoc ki tou iou pev c tqv
civ ktu tov otov oiqvc0q po tiv tv ctipv, vo oupv- Bessus,
proclaimed himself king, sacrificed to the gods, and invited his friends to a banquet. In
the course of the drinking, he fell into argument with one of the Companions, Bagodaras
by name.
The context again is clear: a rivalry of Persian nobles over the issue of Bessus
usurpation. However, in contrast to Curtius Rufus, Diodorus does not exploit this theme
according to the principles of oratory. Since he does not use the term hetairoi for
Macedonians in his Book XVII, but does so repeatedly in his Hellenistic books, he
evidently did not find the word in his source for Alexander
33
.
To conclude: Although Curtius Rufus rarely uses technical terms for Companions or
bodyguards, he most often does so in his accounts of conspiracies. Furthermore, Curtius
eagerly inserts the words comes and (corporis) custos into rhetorical contexts. Therefore, he
exploits both terms in contrasts, metaphors, comparisons and paradoxes. Traces of
similar terminology in Diodorus (and in Plutarch where he deals with Oxyathres) may

32 J. Hornblower, Hieronymus of Cardia, Oxford 1981, 34.
33 P. Briant, Darius, 197-8 notices that Curtius plays with the motive of fidelity throughout this
passage (the concept of fidelity recurs with notable intensity: 5.8.3; 5.10.7; 5.11.6; 5.11.11).
Conspirators Companions - Bodyguards

Page 31

suggest that it was not Curtius Rufus who invented the rhetoric of companionship,
guardianship and (dis-) loyalty. Given the structural resemblance between the Philotas
affair and Parmenios mistaken charge against Philip of Acarnania, or between the
conspiracy of Dimnus not revealed by Philotas and the conspiracy of Bessus revealed by
Patron, and numerous cross-references between these stories, one should conclude that
the detailed picture of these events as transmitted to us by Curtius was shaped during the
reign of Alexander. The stories created for the propaganda struggle were incorporated by
at least one of the lost historians of Alexander. This does not exclude the possibility that
it might have been Patron himself who provided Alexander and his propaganda-makers
with the material to elaborate. Moreover, we can imagine that Patron, when he arrived
at the Macedonian camp, was an ideal instrument for Alexander to explain his attitude
toward the distrusted Macedonian elite. Certainly Patron was prone to exaggerate his
role in the last days of Darius; certainly he was pleased by the reception of his message
by the king and among the Macedonians; but certainly, also, he did think about himself
as a reliable witness of Darius death. However, the language of the Patron Darius
episode was the language of the same source, from which Curtius has taken his account
of the conspiracies against Alexander.

JACEK RZEPKA