Classica et Orientalia

Herausgegeben von
Ann C. Gunter, Wouter F. M. Henkelman,
Bruno Jacobs, Robert Rollinger,
Kai Ruffing und Josef Wiesehöfer

Band 30

2022
Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden
The World of Alexander
in Perspective
Contextualizing Arrian

Edited by
Robert Rollinger and Julian Degen

2022
Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden
Veröffentlicht mit freundlicher Unterstützung durch das Holzhausen-Legat,
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (BY-SA) which means
that the text may be used for commercial use, distribution and duplication in all media.
For details go to: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en.
Creative Commons license terms for re-use do not apply to any content (such as graphs, figures, photos,
excerpts, etc.) not original to the Open Access publication and further permission may be required from
the rights holder. The obligation to research and clear permission lies solely with the party re-using the
material.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet
at https://www.dnb.de/.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website
https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/
© by contributors.
Published by Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2022

ISSN 2190-3638 ISBN 978-3-447-11908-5

eISSN 2748-517X eISBN 978-3-447-39322-5
DOI: 10.13173/2190-3638 DOI: 10.13173/9783447119085
 The Royal Insignia of Alexander the Great:
Arrian’s Evidence and Omissions*

Marek Jan Olbrycht (Rzeszów)

While relying chiefly on Ptolemy and Aristobulos, Arrian offers plenty of information on
the Macedonian campaigns in Asia and sheds light on Alexander’s political novelties in
330–323. However, he omits important stages of Alexander’s policy in Iran and Central
Asia and does not reflect systematically an increasing Orientalization of Alexander’s court
and his kingship. These themes appear in the Anabasis of Arrian chiefly in the form of
digressions or side information which, paradoxically, form valuable evidence that comple-
ments a picture of Alexander in terms of his monarchical concept and regalia during his
stay in Asia. 1 Arrian provides two kinds of information – what he derived from Ptolemy
and/or Aristobulos, and stories (legomena) from other authors. 2 In the present article, the
data offered by Arrian are confronted with other accounts and partially with iconograph-
ic evidence. This article addresses the issue of Alexander the Great’s adoption of Iranian
regalia, particularly the royal tiara and diadem, which proved to be pivotal in the history
of his emergent empire in Asia. The chief aim of this paper is to show how Arrian in his
Anabasis pictures the royal tiara and diadem of Alexander.
It is indicative of Alexander’s newly developed concept of rule over conquered territo-
ries that after Gaugamela he proclaimed the title of “King of Asia” (Plut. Alex. 34.1). Still,
Alexander did not receive any new insignia of power on that occasion. 3 A lot has been
written about the title of King of Asia. 4 Assuming that the Plutarch’s account is accurate,
it should be said that the proclamation must have been provisional in nature. It was rather
a claim to power during the ongoing war between Alexander and Darius III when Persia
was defeated but not conquered yet.

* The present paper has been completed with the financial support from the Humboldt Foundation,
the Gerda Henkel Foundation, and the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, USA.
1 On the conquests of Alexander in Asia, see Seibert 1985; Bosworth 1988; Olbrycht 2004; 2007a;
2010; Briant 2010; Müller 2003; 2014; 2019; Heckel 2020.
2 On Arrian’s Anabasis see Bosworth 1980a; 1995; Hammond 1993; Sisti 2001; Sisti, Zambrini 2004;
Burliga 2013; Liotsakis 2019. A recent survey of the sources on Alexander the Great provides Müller
2019, 11–33.
3 Fredricksmeyer 2000, 142, believes that Alexander adopted the royal diadem “at Arbela,” but this is
sheer speculation – sources make no such mention.
4 See Fredricksmeyer 2000; Nawotka 2012.

This is an open access chapter distributed DOI: 10.13173/9783447119085.345

under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
© by the author
346 Marek Jan Olbrycht

During his stays at Babylon, Susa, and in Persis (331–330), Alexander did not announce
any new imperial proclamations concerning his royal authority. The Iranian royal insig-
nia were not assumed by the Macedonian conqueror until 330 in Parthia. With the death
of Darius III in western Parthia, the war against the Persians and the Achaemenid rule
came to an end. Several weeks after that, during a stay in Parthia in the late summer or
early fall of 330 BC, Alexander proclaimed new kingship and stood up as an “admirer of
Persian ways” (Diod. 18.48.5). 5 So far, the Macedonian king had concentrated on military
conquest of the Achaemenid Empire. His new emergent empire, however, needed royal
institutions, court, and a defined concept of monarchy. The new program involved the
ruler’s adoption of Iranian dress and Achaemenid insignia, Iranian court offices and cer-
emonials, and other innovations. 6 In this way Alexander took the necessary and decisive
steps towards building a new empire. These undertakings were necessary for Alexander
was increasingly to reckon with Iranian elites’ representatives, who frequently displayed
a wait-and-see attitude.
The greatest amount of detail concerning the political innovations introduced in the
double satrapy of Parthia-Hyrcania is supplied by the so-called Vulgate tradition (Diod.
17.77.4–7; 17, arg. ιγ’; Curt. 6.6.1–11; Iust. 12.3.8–12), by Plutarch (Alex. 45; 47.1; De Alexandri
Magni fortuna aut virtute = Mor. 329–330) and some other sources (Metz Epitome 1.2; Suda,
s.v. Alexandros; Luk. Dial. Mort. 396–397). Unlike these writers, Arrian paints a different
picture: references to Alexander’s new “barbarian” dress and insignia do not appear until
the historian digresses on the capture of Artaxerxes Bessos in Central Asia in 329. Arrian
offers a passage (An. 4.7.4) in which he criticizes Alexander’s reforms and accuses him of
fostering the “barbarian” splendor and cruelty. The latter point refers to the “excessive and
barbaric mutilation” of Bessos (τὴν ἄγαν ταύτην τιμωρίαν Βήσσου ἐπαινῶ, ἀλλὰ βαρβαρικὴν
εἶναι τίθεμαι). 7 Mutilation of the nose and ears was not unknown in the Greek world as it
can be found in Homer (Od. 18.85–7; 21.300–1; 22.474–7), but generally it was perceived as
a “barbarian” custom (cf. Plut. Mor. 113B). Its condemnation by Arrian formed a suitable
introduction to the issue of Alexander’s orientalizing novelties. Arrian stresses that he does
not commend Alexander’s taking to Median garb instead of the Macedonian traditional
dress, and condemns Alexander “for exchanging the head-dress he had long worn for the
kitaris of the Persians, whom he himself had conquered” (An. 4.7.4):

καὶ ἐγὼ οὔτε τὴν ἄγαν ταύτην τιμωρίαν Βήσσου ἐπαινῶ, ἀλλὰ βαρβαρικὴν εἶναι
τίθεμαι τῶν ἀκρωτηρίων τὴν λώβην καὶ ὑπαχθῆναι Ἀλέξανδρον ξύμφημι ἐς ζῆλον τοῦ
Μηδικοῦ τε καὶ Περσικοῦ πλούτου καὶ τῆς κατὰ τοὺς βαρβάρους βασιλέας οὐκ ἴσης
ἐς τοὺς ὑπηκόους ξυνδιαιτήσεως, ἐσθῆτά τε ὅτι Μηδικὴν ἀντὶ τῆς Μακεδονικῆς τε καὶ
πατρίου Ἡρακλείδης ὢν μετέλαβεν, οὐδαμῇ ἐπαινῶ, καὶ τὴν κίταριν τὴν Περσικὴν
τῶν νενικημένων ἀντὶ ὧν αὐτὸς ὁ νικῶν πάλαι ἐφόρει ἀμεῖψαι οὐκ ἐπῃδέσθη (…).

5 Cf. Bosworth 1980a, 346; Olbrycht 2013.

6 For details, see Olbrycht 2004, 20–30; 2013; 2017. For the costume of the Persian kings, see: Calmey-
er 1988; Shahbazi 1992; Rehm 2006.
7 On Arr. An. 4.7.4, see Bosworth 1995, 47–51.
 The Royal Insignia of Alexander the Great: Arrian’s Evidence and Omissions 347

Arrian describes the situation in winter 329/328, when Alexander stayed in Bactria and
his opponent Bessos was captured in Transoxania, mutilated and then executed at Ekbat-
ana. All at once we can see Alexander was wearing the Median outfit and a Persian crown
called the kitaris (kidaris). But Arrian makes no mention of these regalia before the Bac-
trian events described in Book IV of his Anabasis. In Book III, Arrian reports the pursuit
of Darius and then the military actions in western Parthia and Hyrcania (An. 3.20–25.1). 8
According to Arrian, Alexander, having subjugated Hyrcania, the Tapurians and Mard-
ians, spent 15 days in Zadrakarta, the capital of Hyrcania, and then marched towards the
Parthians and on to Susia in Areia. 9 Then Arrian provides the hint (An. 3.25.1) that the
Macedonians marched έπί Παρθυαίους, i.e. specifically that the army had returned to Par-
thia starting in Hyrcania. A similar phrase can be found in Curtius 6.5.32. No details are
offered for Alexander’s march from Hyrcania via Parthia except for appointing the satrap
Satibarzanes in Areia. Then Arrian (An. 3.25.3) claims that “certain Persians met Alexan-
der, reporting that Bessos was wearing his tiara upright and clothing himself in Persian
royal garb, called himself Artaxerxes instead of Bessos, and gave out that he was King of
Asia” (ἐν τούτῳ δὲ ἀφικνοῦνται παρ᾽ αὐτὸν Περσῶν τινες, οἳ ἤγγελλον Βῆσσον τήν τε τιάραν
ὀρθὴν ἔχειν καὶ τὴν Περσικὴν στολὴν φοροῦντα Ἀρτοξέρξην τε καλεῖσθαι ἀντὶ Βήσσου καὶ
βασιλέα φάσκειν εἶναι τῆς Ἀσίας). Artaxerxes Bessos and Alexander assumed the regalia
independently of each other. 10
The news of Bessos’ coronation was received by Alexander in Areia after his stay in
Parthia. This is suggested by Arrian, and evidently testified by Curtius 6.6.13, who has
Satibarzanes, the satrap of Areia, giving Alexander the news about Bessos. Alexander was
ready to confront Bessos and set off towards Bactria, probably via Margiana, but then the
news of Satibarzanes’ rebellion caused his retreat back to Areia. 11
In the narrative of Arrian, nothing particular happened in Parthia-Hyrcania after the
death of Darius III in terms of Alexander’s royal policies. Arrian eagerly describes the
details of the military clashes in western Parthia, Hyrcania (clashes with Mardians and
Tapurians), and Areia (rebellion of Satibarzanes). However, in all of this there is no el-
ement of the utmost importance, namely Alexander’s proclaiming himself as the King
of his new empire harking back to Achaemenid traditions. Arrian himself provides no
direct evidence and it is only Arrian’s sequence of events, confronted with other sources
mentioned above, that leads us to think that the assuming of Achaemenid regalia by Al-
exander took place in Parthia, between the stay in Hyrcanian Zadrakarta and the meeting
with Satibarzanes in Areia.
Other Alexander historians, namely the so-called Vulgate authors and Plutarch, give
exactly such a sequence directly, complementing Arrian’s narrative gaps. They offer de-
tails about Alexander’s assuming new “Persian” regalia and clothes (see above). However,
it is Arrian’s silence that is gaining in importance, as well as his forced and marginal men-

8 See Seibert 1985, 111–118.

9 Details in Seibert 1985, 115–118.
10 Cf. Diod. 17.74.1–2; Curt. 6.6.13; Metz Epitome 1.3.
11 Olbrycht 1996, 151; 2004, 211–222; Seibert 1985, 119–120.
348 Marek Jan Olbrycht

tions of the reluctantly described Iranian regalia, including a diadem and a royal tiara of
Alexander. 12
The assuming of Iranian regalia was not the only aspect of Alexander’s new political
program proclaimed in Parthia. There were several pivotal elements at work there. 13 1)
Thanks to Arrian, we know that in Parthia for the first time Alexander applied a new
administrative scheme – alongside an Iranian satrap there was a supervisor – an episkopos,
with a small military unit, but without occupation troops (Arr. An. 3.25.2). This novelty
is of crucial significance – it demonstrates that Alexander introduced in Parthia a new ad-
ministrative structure with Iranians playing a pivotal role as powerful governors, includ-
ing Amminapes and Phrataphernes, the satraps of Parthia-Hyrcania, or Satibarzanes, the
satrap of Areia. 14 2). It was in Parthia-Hyrcania that Alexander established a new mounted
corps of hippakontistai that included Iranian javelin men. 15 3) His first foundation in Asia
– Alexandropolis – Alexander established in Parthia. 16 4) In addition, Alexander created
Iranian guard units and incorporated a harem into his court. 17
All of these measures belong to the new concept of rule that was proclaimed and initi-
ated in the satrapy of Parthia-Hyrcania after the death of Darius III. Points 1 and 2, con-
cerning administrative and military measures, are described in Arrian’s accounts. Issues
dealing with court guards and harem, omitted by Arrian in his accounts of the stay of
Alexander in Parthia-Hyrcania and Areia, appear later in Arrian’s narrative without any
explanation about when these institutions were incorporated in the court of Alexander
(point 4). The same applies to point 3 – Arrian describes some foundations of Alexander
(in the Paropamisadai and on the Iaxartes) in detail, but glosses over colonies in Parthia
or in Bactria. 18
It is frequently believed that Alexander did not accept the Iranian tiara. 19 Somewhat
surprisingly, Alexander’s use of it is explicitly mentioned by Arrian, who is sporadic in
reporting Alexander’s Iranian raiment. Arrian (An. 4.7.4) uses the term “Persian kitaris”
for the crown of Alexander. Kitaris (κίταρις; in fact, the form κίδαρις seems to be more
correct) appears to refer to the crown of the Achaemenids in general, but this rare techni-
cal term meant essentially a cylinder-shaped headgear, used alongside the Median crown
called the upright tiara (tiara orthe). Apparently Arrian makes a reference to this Persian
crown. A tiara called a kidaris is testified in Arrian (An. 6.29.3) as the headgear of Baryax-
es, a Median usurper in 324. In this case the term kidaris may refer to the Median tiara.
The use of the technical term kitaris/kidaris by Arrian (An. 4.7.4) reflects the tradition of

12 On the Iranian regalia and dress of Alexander as used from 330 BC onwards, see Neuffer 1929; Rit-
ter 1965, 31ff.; Bosworth 1980b; Seibert 2006; Olbrycht 2004; 2007; 2010; 2011; 2013; 2017; Collins
2012.
13 I addressed this issue first in Olbrycht 2004, 26–41, 102–110, 276–281.
14 Olbrycht 2004, 208–211.
15 Details in Olbrycht 2011a.
16 Plin. NH 6.113 with Olbrycht 2004, 208–211; 2014.
17 Olbrycht 2004, 26–27; 2010.
18 On the colonies of Alexander, see Olbrycht 2004, 205–281; 2014.
19 See, e.g., Brunt 1976, 532–534; Bosworth 1995, 50; Fredricksmeyer 2000, 153; Seibert 2006, 115.
 The Royal Insignia of Alexander the Great: Arrian’s Evidence and Omissions 349

his sources. For this issue, Ptolemy’s work as the original source is excluded for he was not
interested in royal Oriental paraphernalia. Probably, Arrian resorted to Vulgate tradition
which knows the word κίδαρις (Latin cidaris). 20 Curtius (3.3.19) stresses that “The Persians
called the king’s head-dress cidaris; this was bound with a blued fillet variegated with
white” (Cidarim Persae vocabant regium capitis insigne; hoc caerulea fascia albo distincta
circumibat).
Arrian’s account is difficult to dismiss, as he usually downplays “barbarian” elements
in Alexander’s ceremonial and policy. H. W. Ritter, so distinguished for the research of
Persian regalia, tries to overturn Arrian’s testimony about the tiara, but it is an uncon-
vincing attempt. 21 He assumes that the source of the information on the tiara was not
Ptolemy Lagu, who did not pay any attention to Alexander’s costume, hence the value
of the information is doubtful. Once again, the dogmatic treatment of Ptolemy Lagu
by some historians as “infallible” can be seen. Other arguments against Arrian uses A.
B. Bosworth: “Arrian is reproducing a rhetorical error (…) and refers casually to the up-
right tiara as the standard item of Persian court dress.” 22 Bosworth’s view must be rejected
for the tiara appears in connection with Alexander in the reliable historical context and
cannot be perceived as a rhetorical embellishment. The Alexander’s use of the tiara, even
if sporadic, was not fiction but a part of his political program. The Itinerarium Alexan-
dri (89) speaks of Alexander’s use of an apex as headgear, the term closely corresponding
to the upright tiara or kidaris. 23 Finally, according to Lukian, Alexander wore an upright
tiara (tiara orthe) (Dial. Mort. 396).
The Persian kings used two types of tiara, namely the upright tiara and the cylindrical
crown. 24 A strict division existed between soft flat and stiff upright tiaras (Hdt. 7.61; Xen.
Kyr. 8.3.13; Xen. An. 2.5.23). The regal tiara was worn upright (tiara orthe), 25 as opposed
to an ordinary soft and flat tiara used by select Iranians including the so-called Kinsmen
(syngeneis) of the Great King (cf. Xen. Kyr. 8.3.13). An ordinary flat tiara could be called a
kyrbasia (Hdt. 5.49).
In Persepolis court art and Achaemenid minor art works, the rulers usually do not
appear in the upright tiara – instead they wear a cylindrical toothed crown linked to the
Persian tradition. Similarly, the archer on Achaemenid coins, believed to represent a king,
wears a fluted, toothed crown. It seems that, as with the Achaemenids, Alexander occa-
sionally wore both tiaras. However, the evidence of iconography suggests the predominat-
ing use of the “Median” upright tiara by Alexander.
Arrian (An. 4.7.4) suggests that Alexander assumed the “Persian kidaris” instead of
another headdress he “had long worn”. This phrase is understood in various ways. Alex-

20 Curt. 3.3.19. Cf. Itin. Alex. 64: cidar, apicem regium

21 Ritter 1965, 46–47.
22 Bosworth 1995, 50.
23 For the connection of the terms tiara and apex, see Amm. Marcell. 18.5.6; 18.8.5.
24 Ritter 1965; Hinz 1974; Calmeyer 1976; 1993; Gall 1976; 1990; Henkelmann 1996; Olbrycht 1997;
Tuplin 2007.
25 Xen. An. 2.5.23. Cf. Plut. Them. 29.
350 Marek Jan Olbrycht

ander as the Macedonian King did not wear any crown by 330. It is possible that Arrian
wrongly considered a diadem to be an attribute of Alexander’s rule from the beginning of
his reign. In the Mediterranean world, a diadem became such an attribute during the Hel-
lenistic period following Alexander’s habit; 26 consequently, Arrian might have thought
that Alexander used it from an early age. Another possibility is that he had the Macedoni-
an kausia in mind, but this was not a royal attribute.
Alexander’s acceptance of the blue-and-white Iranian diadem in Parthia is unani-
mously confirmed by the Vulgate authors and by a number of other testimonies. 27 Inter-
estingly, the diadem appears suddenly in Arrian’s work in Book VII, with no indication of
when Alexander started using it and why. This implies that Arrian was on purpose silent
about the introduction of this attribute of royal power.
Arrian (An. 7.9.9) names purple paraphernalia and the diadem (ή πορφύρα καί τό
διάδημα) in Alexander’s speech to the army gathered at Opis in 324. At An. 7.22.2–5, Ar-
rian mentions a diadem alongside a headdress called the kausia (καυσία). Arrian reports
a legomenon (λόγος λέγεται τοῖόσδε) that Alexander’s kausia and diadem were blown off
and fell into the water, and that the diadem was retrieved by a sailor who swam with it on
his own head. According to Arrian “Aristobulos says that the sailor received a talent and
a beating for fastening the diadem round his head”. Arrian points to other versions in
which Alexander gave the sailor a talent but ordered his decapitation. One of the versions
identifies the sailor as Seleukos. Arrian leaves his readers to choose between the different
versions noting that Seleukos inherited the largest kingdom. 28
The diadem as a royal attribute of Alexander is mentioned in sources 36 times, includ-
ing three times in combination with a Macedonian hat called the kausia. 29 It is there-
fore certain that a combination of a kausia with a diadem was merely sporadic and that
Alexander’s chief royal headgear was the diadem alone. 30 Or the diadem was sometimes
used in a combination with the tiara as was the case with the Achaemenids. Unlike in the
Achaemenid period, the diadem was reserved for the king himself as implicated by Arrian
(An. 7.22.2). 31 When after Alexander’s death his regalia were put on display, the diadem
was there, but the kausia was not (Curt. 10.6.4).

26 Ritter 1965; Olbrycht 2015.

27 Curt. 6.6.4; Diod. 17.77.4–5; Iust. 12.3.8; Metz Epitome 1.2; Luk. Dial. Mort. 393, 396–397; Plut.
Mor. 330e, 332a; Arr. An. 7.9.9; Ps.-Kallisthenes 2.7.6 (p. 73 ed. Kroll). A full list of source references
gives Ritter 1965, 56, n. 1. Fredricksmeyer 2000, 142, 154–155, maintains that a diadem was not a
Persian royal emblem of power, but his arguments are not persuasive. Smith (1991, 20) represents a
similar standpoint: “It had not been worn by the Persian king (as sometimes supposed) and was of
uncertain origin.” On the Persian origin of the royal diadem, see Diod. 17.77.5 and Curt. 6.6.4 with
Ritter 1987, 298–299, and Olbrycht 2004, 290–293.
28 Cf. Hammond 1993, 303.
29 Ritter 1965, 43 with references and 56, n. 1. A diadem in conjunction with a kausia is testified in:
Ephippos, FGrHist 126 F5=Athen. 12.537e; Aristobulos, FGrHist 139 F 55 = Arr. An. 7.22.2. On the
Macedonian kausia, see Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1993, 122–142.
30 Rightly so, Ritter 1965, 57.
31 See Arrian, FGrHist 156 F 177a = Suda, s.v. Krateros.
 The Royal Insignia of Alexander the Great: Arrian’s Evidence and Omissions 351

In addition to literary records confirming Alexander’s use of an Iranian tiara and di-
adem, more evidence is found in the royal iconography on Alexander’s coins. 32 Some of
his monetary issues in Asia Minor (Sardis) and Syria (Bambyke/Hierapolis) bear presum-
ably his likeness in an upright tiara. In addition, Alexander depicted on his Indian dec-
adrachms seems to be appearing in composite headgear which combined an Iranian tiara
and Macedonian helmet. 33
The capture and mutilation of Bessos are followed by the “Great Digression” (An.
4.7.4–4.14.4) in which Arrian gives a moral review of orientalizing ways of Alexander and
his court. Arrian (An. 4.7.4) begins the digression in the first person and demonstrates his
rejection of Alexander’s adoption of Persian opulence, the using of Median dress and the
Persian kidaris. 34
Arrian’s indication of the “Median dress” as an attribute of Alexander, given in An.
4.7.4, is correct. Indeed, Alexander adopted elements of Median dress including an upper
sleeved garment (chiton mesoleukos), a cloak, and a belt. The same elements are recorded in
Curtius when he describes the apparel and insignia of the Persian King Darius III, includ-
ing a tunic, a purple cloak, a belt, and the tiara called cidaris with the diadem. 35
In Arrian’s narrative, the theme of the royal Iranian costume and insignia appears sev-
eral times in the key moments of Alexander’s life when there were conflicts between the
King and the Macedonians which revolved around the increasing “Orientalization” of
Alexander, his court and army. Arrian repeatedly points to the orientalizing activities of
Alexander linking them with digressions demonstrating the king’s lack of moral integrity
and the ongoing corruption.
The digression involving the cruelty demonstrated towards Bessos Artaxerxes makes
up the first extended account of Alexander’s Orientalization which includes references to
the novelties which had been introduced in Parthia. Likewise, the murder of Kleitos and
the affair of Kallisthenes are linked with the proskynesis affair (An. 4.8–4.10). Arrian pic-
tures the proskynesis issues as an illustration, comparable to the adoption of Persian court
dress, of Alexander’s rebuttal of the ancestral ways (An. 4.9.9; 4.11.6). In the Pages’ Con-
spiracy (An. 4.13.5–6) Hermolaos lists all the elements of “barbarization” of Alexander.
The topics of the orientalizing policies of Alexander are taken up in the final chapters
of the Anabasis. Arrian describes the resentment of Macedonian soldiers who had enough
of Alexander’s “barbarization”, and opposed the growing role of Iranians in the army at

32 See Olbrycht 2004, 298–307; 2008a, 19–24. Cf. Seyrig 1971 (Hierapolis); Price 1981 (Memphis);
Debord 1999, 485–86, pl. XII 5–7; 2000, 255–263 (Sardis).
33 Olbrycht 2017; 2020.
34 For the Greek critical approach to the topos of Oriental richness and extravagance, see Bernhardt
2003.
35 Curt 3.3.17–19: [17] Cultus regis inter omnia luxuria notabatur: purpureae tunicae medium album
intextum erat, pallam auro distinctam aurei accipitres, velut rostris inter se concurrerent, [18] adorna-
bant, ex zona aurea muliebriter cinctus acinacem suspenderat, cui ex gemma vagina erat. [19] Cidarim
Persae vocabant regium capitis insigne: hoc caerulea fascia albo distincta circumibat.
352 Marek Jan Olbrycht

Susa in 324 (An. 7.6.1–5). 36 Arrian states that the soldiers were greatly pained to see Alex-
ander wearing the “Median dress” (An. 7.6.2).
Furthermore, Arrian refers to Alexander’s medism as a cause of the rebellion at Opis in
324 (An. 7.8.1–3). 37 The list of complaints against Alexander contains the reference to his
“Persian dress” that vexed the Macedonians on many previous occasions. Arrian admits
that this practice offended the soldiers “during the entire expedition” (An. 7.8.2–3). This
is apparently meant as a practice introduced in 330. Arrian’s statements clearly show that
Alexander used his Persian raiment (designated as ἐσθής) often and regularly for many
years, looking back from the perspective of the year 324.
The last Arrian’s digression judging Alexander (An. 7.28–30) involves orientalizing
factors at court (7.29.4) alongside uncontrolled anger (7.29.2) and divine sonship (7.29.3).
In this digression Arrian is less critical towards Alexander and applies the principle of
rhetorical whitewashing (7.29.3–4). 38
Arrian’s condemnation of Alexander’s “barbarization” is similar to the general senti-
ment visible in Diodoros, Justin, and Curtius. Some scholars assume that this approach
originally derives from the Vulgate authors and was present in Kleitarchos. 39 However,
A. B. Bosworth states that Arrian is clearly independent of Kleitarchos, “as his descrip-
tion of the court dress proves. He is more likely to be reproducing a standard literary and
rhetorical topos.” 40 Contrary to this, one can observe some common elements in Arrian
and Curtius. Thus, e.g., Arrian 4.7.4 and Curtius 3.3.19 share the knowledge of the term
κίδαρις/cidaris which implies a common source, may it be Kleitarchos or another author.
Arrian (An. 7.29.4) stresses that Alexander’s “Persian” dress was a device designed for
the barbarians, to make the king not wholly alien from them in appearance. 41 Arrian,
without providing details, emphasizes that Alexander took over the Persian dress and
created Iranian military units. The two most striking elements of the Iranian policy of
Alexander, the royal paraphernalia and the Iranians’ increasing role in the royal armed
forces, are aptly combined here.
By way of conclusion, it is evident that Arrian’s main sources, i.e. Ptolemy and Aristob-
ulos, did not inform about Alexander’s adoption of Iranian regalia including the diadem,
tiara, and dress in summer 330. Arrian refers to this issue first in connection with the
events of the summer 329 in Book IV of his Anabasis (4.7.4). These references are includ-
ed in the narrative of a Macedonian confrontation with Bessos-Artaxerxes who claimed
the Achaemenid kingship. Arrian uses the technique of apophasis (παράλειψις) which is
rarely literal; instead, it conveys meaning and substance through implications and allu-
sions that may depend on context. This approach allowed for the omission of orientaliz-

36 Olbrycht 2016.
37 See Olbrycht 2008b.
38 See Bosworth 1995, 46.
39 So Hammond 1983, 59, 102, 136.
40 Bosworth 1995, 49.
41 While referring to the Iranian costume of Alexander, Arrian uses the terms Persian (7.29.4) and
Median (4.7.4) interchangeably and is not accurate in his terminology.
 The Royal Insignia of Alexander the Great: Arrian’s Evidence and Omissions 353

ing reforms made by Alexander in the main narrative of Arrian’s Anabasis. These omis-
sions included the assumption of Achaemenid regalia in Parthia in 330 BC. The laconic
notes, digressions and omissions of Arrian on Alexanders’s tiara, diadem, and elements
of Achaemenid outfit can only be fully understood if they are confronted with all the
accounts of Alexander’s policies vis-à-vis the Iranians in 330–323.

References

Bernhardt 2003 = R. Bernhardt, Luxuskritik und Aufwandsbeschränkungen in der

griechischen Welt (Historia Einzelschriften 168), Stuttgart.
Bittner 19872 = S. Bittner, Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen Heeres zur Zeit der
Achaimeniden, München.
Bosworth 1980a = A.B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alex-
ander, Books I–III, Oxford.
—. 1980b = Alexander and the Iranians, JHS 100: 1–21.
—. 1988 = Conquest and Empire. The Reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge.
—. 1995 = A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, Books IV–V, Oxford.
Briant 2010 = P. Briant, Alexander the Great and his Empire, Princeton.
Brunt 1976–1983 = P.A. Brunt, Arrian. History of Alexander and Indica, vol. I–II, Cam-
bridge MA.
Burliga 2013 = B. Burliga, Arrian’s Anabasis: An Intellectual and Cultural Story, Gdańsk.
Calmeyer 1976 = P. Calmeyer, Zur Genese altiranischer Motive: IV. “Persönliche Krone”
und Diadem, AMI 9: 45–63.
—. 1988 = Zur Genese altiranischer Motive X. Die elamisch-persische Tracht, AMI 21:
27–51.
—. 1993 = Crown I. In the Median and Achaemenid Periods, in: EncIr 6, 407–408.
Collins 2012 = A.W. Collins, The Royal Costume and Insignia of Alexander the Great,
AJPh 133: 371–402.
Debord 2000 = P. Debord, Les monnayages “perses” à l’effigie d’Alexandre, in: O. Casab-
onne (ed.), Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l’Anatolie achéménide. Numis-
matique et Histoire. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul, 22–23 mai 1997, Istanbul/Paris,
255–263.
Fredricksmeyer 2000  = E.A. Fredricksmeyer, Alexander and the Kingship of Asia, in:
A.B. Bosworth/E. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford,
136–166.
Gall 1974 = H. von Gall, Die Kopfbedeckung des persischen Ornats bei den Achämenid-
en, AMI 7: 145–161.
—. 1990 = Die Kopfbedeckungen des medischen Ornats in achämenidischer und hellen-
istischer Zeit, in: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (ed.), Akten des XIII. Interna-
tionalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie (Berlin 1988), Mainz, 320–323.
Hamilton 1969 = J.R. Hamilton, Plutarch, Alexander: A Commentary, Oxford.
Hammond 1983 = N.G.L. Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great, Cambridge.
354 Marek Jan Olbrycht

—. 1993 = Sources for Alexander the Great: An Analysis of Plutarch’s ‘Life’ and Arrian’s
‘Anabasis Alexandrou’, Cambridge.
Heckel 2020  = W. Heckel, In the Path of Conquest. Resistance to Alexander the Great,
Oxford.
Henkelman 1996  = W.F.M. Henkelman, The Royal Achaemenid Crown, AMIT 28:
275–293.
Hinz 1974 = W. Hinz, Tiara, in: RE, Suppl.-Bd. 14, Stuttgart, 794–796.
—. 1969 = Altiranische Funde und Forschungen, Berlin.
Liotsakis 2019 = V. Liotsakis, Alexander the Great in Arrian’s Anabasis: A Literary Portrait,
Berlin/New York.
Müller 2003 = S. Müller, Maßnahmen der Herrschaftssicherung gegenüber der makedonis-
chen Opposition bei Alexander dem Großen, Frankfurt.
—. 2014 = Alexander, Makedonien und Persien, Berlin.
—. 2019 = Alexander der Große. Eroberungen – Politik – Rezeption, Stuttgart.
Nawotka 2012 = K. Nawotka, Persia, Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Asia, Klio
94.2: 348–356.
Neuffer 1929 = E. Neuffer, Das Kostüm Alexanders des Großen, Gießen.
Olbrycht 1996  = M.J. Olbrycht, Die Beziehungen der Steppennomaden Mittelasiens
zu den hellenistischen Staaten (bis zum Ende des 3. Jahrhunderts vor Chr.), in: B.
Funck (ed.), Hellenismus. Beiträge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer
Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters, Tübingen, 147–169.
—. 1997 = Parthian King’s Tiara – Numismatic Evidence and Some Aspects of Arsacid
Political Ideology, Notae Numismaticae 2: 27–65.
—. 2004 = Alexander the Great and the Iranian world (Aleksander Wielki I świat
irański), Rzeszów.
—. 2007a = Alexander the Great versus the Iranians – an alternative perspective, Folia
Orientalia 42/43: 159–172.
—. 2007b = The military reforms of Alexander the Great during his campaign in Iran,
Afghanistan, and Central Asia, in: C. Galewicz et al. (eds.), Miscellanea Eurasiatica
Cracoviensia, Kraków, 309–321.
—. 2008a = On Some Coins of Alexander the Great (336–323 BC) and his pro-Iranian
policy, Payam-e Bastanshenas, Journal of Archaeology of the Islamic Azad University of
Abhar (Iran) 4/8: 19–24.
—. 2008b = Curtius Rufus, the Macedonian Mutiny at Opis and Alexander’s Iranian
Policy in 324 BC, in: J. Pigoń  (ed.), The Children of Herodotus. Greek and Roman
Historiography and Related Genres, Newcastle, 231–252.
—. 2010 = Macedonia and Persia, in: J. Roisman/I. Worthington (eds.), Blackwell Com-
panion to Ancient Macedonia, Malden, MA/Oxford, 342–369.
—. 2011a = First Iranian Units in the Army of Alexander the Great, Anabasis 2: 67–84.
—. 2011b = On Coin Portraits of Alexander the Great and His Iranian Regalia, Notae
Numismaticae 6: 13–30.
 The Royal Insignia of Alexander the Great: Arrian’s Evidence and Omissions 355

—. 2013 = “An Admirer of Persian Ways”: Alexander the Great’s Reforms in Parthia-Hyr-
cania and the Iranian Heritage, in: T. Daryaee et al.  (eds.), Excavating an Empire.
Achaemenid Persia in Longue Durée, Costa Mesa, CA, 37–62.
—. 2014  = Die Alexandergründungen in den nordiranischen Ländern im Lichte der
geographischen Tradition der Antike, in: A.V. Podossinov  (ed.), The Periphery of
the Classical World in Ancient Geography and Cartography, Leuven/Paris/Walpole,
95–121.
—. 2015 = The Diadem in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic Periods, Anabasis 5: 177–187.
—. 2016 = Alexander the Great at Susa (324 B.C.), in: C. Bearzot/F. Landucci (eds.), Al-
exander’s Legacy. Atti del Convegno Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Milano 2015,
Roma, 61–72.
—. 2017 = Parthia, Bactria and India: The Iranian Policies of Alexander of Macedonia
(330–323), in: C. Antonetti/P. Biagi (eds.), With Alexander in India and Central Asia
Moving East and Back to West, Oxford/Philadelphia, 194–209.
—. 2020 = “Poros” Coinage, in: W. Heckel et al. (eds.), Lexicon of Argead Makedonia,
Berlin, 433–435.
Price 1981 = M.J. Price, Appendix J, “The Coins,” in: G.T. Martin (ed.), The Sacred Ani-
mal Necropolis at N. Saqqara, London, 156–165.
Rehm 2006 = E. Rehm, Purpur und Gold – die persische Tracht, in: E. Rehm/H. Ex-
ternbrink (eds.), Das persische Weltreich – Prunk und Pracht der Großkönige. Begleit-
buch zur Ausstellung des Historischen Museums in Speyer, Stuttgart, 202–209.
Ritter 1965 = H.-W. Ritter, Diadem und Königsherrschaft, München/Berlin.
—. 1987 = Die Bedeutung des Diadems, Historia 36: 290–301.
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 1993  = Chr. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Aspects of Ancient Macedonian
Costume, JHS 113: 122–147.
Seibert 1985 = J. Seibert, Die Eroberung des Perserreiches durch Alexander den Großen auf
kartographischer Grundlage, Wiesbaden.
—. 2006 = Das Bild Alexanders des Großen als Großkönig, in: V. Leca/D. Nedu (eds.),
Filia. Festschrift für Gerhard Wirth zum 80. Geburtstag (Historia Antiqua Galatien-
sis), Galaţi, 107–121.
Seyrig 1971 = H. Seyrig, Monnaies hellenistiques. 19. Le monnayage de Hierapolis de Syrie
a l’epoque d’Alexandre, RN, 11–21 (= H. Seyrig, Scripta Numismatica, Paris 1986,
171–181).
Shahbazi 1992 = A.Sh. Shahbazi, Clothing II. In the Median and Achaemenid periods,
in: EncIr 5, 723–737.
Sisti 2001 = F. Sisti, Arriano: Anabasi di Alessandro, vol. I, Milano.
Sisti/Zambrini 2004  = F. Sisti/A. Zambrini, Arriano: Anabasi di Alessandro, vol. II,
Milano.
Smith 1991 = R.R.R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture, London.
Tuplin 2007  = C. Tuplin, Treacherous Hearts and Upright Tiaras: the Achaemenid
King’s Head Dress, in: C. Tuplin (ed.), Persian Responses: Political and Cultural Inter-
action with(in) the Achaemenid Empire, Swansea, 267–311.