All dates are B.C. unless otherwise stated.
The familiar anglicized Latin forms of Greek names are given.
3 minute read.
Espionage (κατασκοπεία)
Before proceeding to a general discussion of reconnaissance in antiquity, a case must be made for its very existence, especially in the earlier years.
“At its simplest, espionage is nothing more than a kind of well-concealed reconnaissance.”
κατασκοπεία – Greek for espionage, defined as the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information.
As Atheno-centric, in outlook -the perimeters of the Greek world were expanding throughout the eighth and following centuries, and conflict with other peoples at these frontiers was all but perpetual.
A need for information on terrain and enemy forces (a need historically met by reconnaissance units) was certainly present.
Reconnaissance entailed agents entering and exploring a hostile or unknown area, to acquire tactical information
(the location and disposition of the enemy, the terrain and roads by land, the coast and anchorages by sea).
-
-
Strategic information was not generally available to them, except insofar as they might capture officers or couriers while scouting.
-
Surveillance involved regular, protracted observation of an area or a military force to note changes, such as the advent or withdrawal of men or ships.
-
Reconnaissance normally involved movement and exploration, surveillance was often sedentary, although it could also be conducted along fixed patrol routes on the periphery of a friendly area.
-
Reconnaissance Agents (Skopoi, Kataskopoi)
Surveillance agents who are usually active during daylight may be called skopoi or hemeroskopoi (day–observers).
Skopoi relied primarily on their eyes when collecting information, at least by day.
Kataskopoi, like their twentieth-century heirs, operated jointly more often than separately, with a variety of purposes and degrees of reluctance to use arms.
Clear parallels exist between their practices and those recommended for those termed “scouts” in modern military histories and manuals
To obtain an accurate observation, they might approach quite near to an enemy forces
– there are examples of mounted Syracusan (Sicilian) scouts coming close enough to shout insults at encamped Athenians, for instance, and of traps set by commanders for unwary scouts who approached their camps.
Direct contact was avoided by small teams, except to capture a straggler, or accost a native, who might be questioned. Larger forces used their inherent threat to force the enemy to disclose his own power.
The distances at which land reconnaissance teams operated varied from the immediate locale to two days’ journey; seaborne forays could extend still further.
Episkopos, also had a wide range of meanings in Homer, from “spy” to “overseer”; in later times the latter meaning eclipsed the former, and the term eventually acquired the primary meaning of “bishop.”
Night Surveillance are called phulakes (watchmen or guards). Phulakes are typically stationary and bound to protect and keep an eye on an area and operates out of established bases.
They were all a great necessity at war and used often.
However, these agents much like in modern times, remain nameless – lost to the passage of time.
While reconnaissance forces were often drawn from particular types of troops, there is no evidence of units organized for the specific and sole purpose of gathering information, although the Lacedaemonians frequently relied on the Skiritai (people subject to Sparta) for repeated employment of the same men and leaders contributed to a degree of specialization and development of expertise.
Commanders of reconnaissance forces determined what was and was not necessary to report back to the commander and they consequently needed a combination of experience and an ability to distinguish reality, from appearance and to realize what was or was not important.
Charles, an ancient Athenian general, found it necessary to seal off his camp and to have each soldier check the identity and unit of the soldier next to him, which did result in catching some spies.
Other security measures during a time of war were :
No festivals are to be held outside the city.
No private gatherings by day or night , unless in special cases with permission in a public building or place.
Curfew was enforced.
No common feasts to be held except for weddings, funerals, which required notice to the authorities.
funeral pyre for Phillip II of Macedonia
Vagrants are to be expelled, foreign students are to be and others must be registered. Restrictions are to be used on ambassadors.
[Even today, Embassies are notorious for spying]
Lueco from Bosporus would discharge his guard if they owed money due to dice games or other irregularities.
No one is to leave the city to join exiles or have any contact with them.
[these checked measures against sedition- a conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.]
Incoming and outgoing foreign mail to be censored by the state.
The guards mounted on the walls were the hardest to get past, due to them being able to see any approaches the farthest off.
Also, the gates of the city were all locked except one, where the entry was the most difficult and individuals had to come in one at a time.
This way a spy or deserter would be more easily caught if the gate keeper were sharp enough.
When the gate was opened to allow in food or wine etc, they were carefully screened to prevent smuggling.
No men at random, were allowed to keep watch at the gate, they must be documented by respective sources and each unit held many men to prevent traitors.
The guards were posted for short shifts to deter guards to fall asleep and have plenty of relief.
The officers in charge were rotated to avoid collusion with conspirators.
Frequent signals were given to the men at night when a new guard was required, however; they were given no foreknowledge of which post he was to report to.
Some recommended stones be thrown over the wall or challenge word required, in case an enemy was approaching unseen, but think they were already detected.
Others thought this approach was necessary and any approaches would just avoid the projectiles.
Therefore dogs were also tethered to the walls, because they would easier sense movement and their barks would also keep the guards awake.
It would still be possible for an enemy to dig tunnels under the walls or mines, so they placed bronze shields in certain places, so the noise made from the digging would reverberate and guards or dogs would easily detect them.
Lights at night were forbidden, because it could be used for signaling. If the troops could be trusted they were allowed to keep lamps at their station to signal if the enemy was approaching.
If they were not able to be trusted they were given a baton by the commander and each guard had to run with it to the next guard until the circumference of the wall was covered and that each guard was alert.
Rewards are were paid for informers, in ancient times a lot of information came from foreigners, but it ended up with many false accusations.
In Rhodes during its naval supremacy, the state was so conscious – death was the punishment to anyone for even trespassing in the docks.
No one is able to sail abroad with out a passport.
In Sparta, expel all foreigners regardless.
Bounties were paid for useful imports . [Trade would be a weakness which could be exploited by spies].
Restriction on mooring ships
[ this was to prevent illegal landing or boarding by spies, or for surprise attack from enemy ships]
Aliens to be disarmed on arrival, they could lodge only with permission.
The beginning of 4th Century BC was the conclusion of the Golden Age of Greece, exiting a zenith (500 BC— 400 BC) when the world witnessed an unprecedented advancement in philosophy, arts, science, mathematics, governance and architecture.
For context, some notable characters that emerged from this multi-disciplinary hodgepodge of intellectualism include: Pythagoras, Herodotus, Socrates, Leonidas (legendary King of Sparta), Euclid, Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pericles.
Plato, himself thought all Greek states were in a permanent state of war, declared or undeclared. A sentiment shared widely in our time, as well.
Even in modern times no 2 independent states have totally identical interests, and when negotiating about clashes of interests, in peacetime just as in war, any government will seek a position in which it can keep its own secrets and discern those of the opposing side.
Unfortunately, this classical era was short lived. What followed was a period that one could justifiably label as a 2nd Greek Dark Age.
To the extent that Greece could have been deemed a single polity at the time, it was comparable to Caesar’s Rome — a period of constant infighting resulting in sociopolitical instability and empty coffers.
Right after the two greatest personalities in Greek history — Sparta and Athens, staged a legendary defense against the almighty Persians, proving that freedom trumps oppression, then they embarked on an almost deliberate path of self-destruction.
They turned towards each other, locked in the infamous Thucydides Trap.
Athens’ period of dominance in Greek affairs ended with her defeat to Sparta at the end of the Peloponnesian War (431 – 404 BC).
Despite this, it continued to play an important part in the internecine (mutual) conflicts that hit Greece until 338 when Philip II of Macedon defeated a joint Athenian-Theban army at Chaeronea.
Athens – like every other Greek city – was now a pawn to be moved about wherever the Macedonian king wished.
However, although down, Athens was not out.
Demosthenes continued to rage with all his oratorical might against Philip, and at the beginning of Alexander’s reign, the city successfully persuaded the new king to forgive her for not immediately recognizing his authority over the Greeks.
Athens’ strength was not limited to fulminating (rage) and reacting to events. It also sought to change them.
After Philip’s murder, Alexander ordered the assassination of anyone who he feared might oppose his rule.
In 338 BC , Attalus‘ niece Cleopatra Eurydice married Philip II of Macedonia, at their wedding,
Attalus made a prayer that Cleopatra may give birth to a legitimate male heir to Philip. This was seen as a direct insult to Alexander the Great.
Among those killed was Philip’s last wife, Cleopatra Euridike, and her children, Europa (daughter) and Caranus (son).
Europa and (especially) Caranus had to die, as their bloodline made them too dangerous for Alexander to let live.
Cleopatra didn’t but, was murdered by Olympias anyway out of spite.
The deaths of Philip’s last family put the future of Cleopatra Euridike’s guardian, the General Attalus, into question.
He was in Asia Minor when Philip was killed, waiting for the arrival of the king and the start of the campaign against the Persian Empire.
Attalus had no claim of his own to the Macedonian throne, but it is not hard to imagine that on hearing of the death of his ward and her children, he would seek to take revenge by making common cause with Alexander’s Greek enemies, and lead a Greek army into Macedon.
Diodorus tells us that this is exactly what Alexander did fear.
And indeed, it might have happened as Athens sent secret agents to Asia Minor to discuss a possible alliance with the general.
As we know, Attalus was assassinated, this moment in history, illuminates Athens’ use of ‘secret agents’, though they are probably more accurately called envoys rather than spies.
Still there was definitely a cloak and dagger (μανδύα και στιλέτο) feel to their mission.
Greek consular agents, or Proxeni, were citizens of the city in which they resided, not of the city-state that employed them.
Like envoys, they had a secondary task of gathering information, but their primary responsibility was trade.
Although Proxeni initially represented one Greek city-state in another, eventually they became…
The role of the proxenos was to facilitate interaction between the two political communities, most often by performing services of different kinds for visiting citizens of the first state (termed here the ‘granting city’).
These services could take various forms – including hospitality, introductions to magistrates, prominent men, or merchants, and help negotiating local legal institutions in the case of contractual disputes.
Collectively these services helped to enable citizens of the granting community in question to overcome the political fragmentation of this world and function, whether as official representatives of their own city, or as merchants, tradesmen, or even as tourists, in other communities where they did not have the privileged status of citizen.
Proxeny networks, therefore, reflect and allow us to trace patterns of political, economic, and social interactions between city states, and to trace the horizons of different political communities.
As Diodorus says, the city ‘[c]ommunicated secretly’ with him, it would be surprising if the agents did not bring back to Athens intelligence relating to the size and state of the Macedonian army under Attalus’ command.
When diplomacy failed, Greek states could have recourse to war and obtain their objectives.
War requires some strategic plan of intended operations.
In modern conditions many experts must have a hand in devising the plan, and it must be prepared well in advance.
An execution of the plan is best entrusted, so far as possible, to a single commander, even in modern times.
Only in the most incidental way, we see mention of secret agents, who tried to detect internal dissent and conspiracy.
However it’s been said , ‘no plans survive contact with the enemy‘.
Generals will arrange their forces to what the believe will be to the advantage, but when the storm of war comes, smashing and changing things, the response is their measures are founded on the demand and compulsion of the moment.
Targeting an enemy and collecting intelligence must go hand in hand with the ability to transmit the information to those who need it most.
Texts of the ancient writers like Aeneas Tacticus, Polybius, Polyaenus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Vegetius all contain snippets of information on ancient signalling.
Information on the enemy could be found by reconnaissance, by forward Calvary, light armed infantry, or swift scouting ships.
It might also be done by espionage, if disguised or otherwise hidden agents working in enemy held territory.
These spies must either bring through enemy force themselves or find a way to transmit their information.
A special case arises when a position is under siege and messages must be sent through besieging forces and fortification conditions.
If a spy got access to information, he still had the issue of getting the information to his own side. but he also ran all the risks of being detected.
Not only that he had to weather the repeated penetration of enemy territory.
Throughout history it has been hard to tell when reconnaissance ends and espionage begins, but when a spy is caught he can expect no mercy.
The Athenians just like other forces would torture and then execute them.
We can also see this reflected in Greek literature such as the 10th book of the Iliad.
Diomedes and Odysseus make reconnaissance at night towards the encampment of the Trojans to find out the enemy’s intentions by capturing a straggler or overhearing the same night Dolon promises to pass through Greek forces to the ship of Agamemnon, where the Greek chieftains will discus the alternatives of escape or continued defense.
“He fights with fury and fills men’s souls with panic. I hold him mightiest of them all; we did not fear even their great champion Achilles, son of an immortal though he be, as we do this man: his rage is beyond all bounds, and there is none can vie with him in prowess.”
The captive’s appearance is weak and disgusting, consisting of wearing a pelt of wolf, with a weasel skin helmet , slinking around all fours and carrying a bow, considered to be the least heroic of weapons. (although this method had been used with some success)
On their way back, the heroes capture him as well.
The captive then pleads in terror and is given ambiguous encouragement provoking him to tell much useful information, however; the captive reaches his hand to Diomedes in supplication for his life, yet his head is cut off ruthlessly .
In the Odyssey, Helen relates a story of Odysseus dressing as a house slave, bringing back much knowledge for the Greeks.
Consider the case of Alexander the Great , when he set off to conquer the Persian Empire.
No doubt he tried to have some the enemy and vast territory.
If Plutarch is believed, as a boy Alexander had interrogated visiting Persian Ambassadors about the lengths of the roads, nature of the routes to the interior of Persia, and the strength and power the kings had.
His father, Phillip subdued the Athenians through bribery and persuasion of a pro-Macedon party in Athens, who advised reaching accommodation with Macedon, and these agents must have kept the king well informed on the plans of the Athenians
The armour and shield of Phillip II.
When Phillip proclaimed a crusade against of the Greeks against the Persians, he could not have omitted from his preparation attempts to inform himself about the enemy, the vast area they held and occupied.
Ambassadors from the Greek states who had visited the Persian court would be once source of information, and merchants who traveled to the East, whether actual on business or infiltrated spies.
Philip Ii Of Macedon Tomb
Some Greeks seem to have just been tourists in the Hellenistic areas of Persia for events such as, religious festivals, games as either an athlete or spectator and education abroad for students …etc.
Around this time Xenophon wrote Anabasis ,the most famous book of the Ancient Greek professional soldiers which was composed around the year 370 BC, and, in translation, Anabasis is rendered as The March of the Ten Thousand and as The March Up Country.
The narration of the journey, is Xenophon’s best known work, and “one of the great adventures in human history“.
This was at a time when Persia was increasingly using Greek mercenary soldiers, who were probably the most easiest form of intel when they returned to Greece in retirement.
Another book by was written by a Greek physician named Ctesias, who lived in the 5th century BC, was physician to the Achaemenid king Artaxerxes II, whom he accompanied in 401 BC on his expedition against his brother Cyrus the Younger.
Ctesias has been known to be unreliable at times.
However, he states Phillip and/or Alexander had contact with prominent Persians who were possibly dissatisfied, with the Persian King Darius‘ rule.
Herodotus simply says, Alexander had scrutinized transmission of letters.
A parallel can be drawn from him to Caesar’s on tactics which he learned from Greek writers and used in his invasion of Briton.
He sent reconnaissance and spies who were seemingly merchants.
The hints we get in Greek sources are confirmed under the Roman Empire, which had carefully organized its intelligent forces such as Procopius.
He was a notarius (a state official, that acted as informants).
He frequently entered and wandered around Constantinople without detection because his face was so gaunt and dirty.
A disguise which became valuable with the high source of information he had. “Philip II of Macedon and Olympias of Epirus married in 357 BC.
Their wedding was celebrated in Aegae, where Philip would meet his end at the hands of an assassin 21 years later.
Alexander The Great’s Father Found In Tomb With Foreign Princess.
A warrior and a diplomat, Philip II ruled the kingdom of Macedon from 359-336 BC.
tomb of Phillip II of Macedonia
He was assassinated during a visit to the town of Aegae, now called Vergina, by a member of his bodyguard, but both ancient and modern historians are at odds as to why.
On the eve of the marriage, Aegae was struck by a fierce storm, which caused panic across the city.
Athens appears to have had only two spies in the Macedonian court at this time; unamed in the sources, they have – since the time of Stern – been nicknamed B(road) and P(ersonal) for the type of the intelligence that they sent back to Athens.
.
Thus, while B. tells us about the storm itself,
[the] … thunderstorm caused palace to shake. I saw lightening strike several homes, destroying them and burning people alive. In the market this morning, many were frightened. The storm is believed to be gods’ anger, though no-one knows for what – whispers against king in marketplace
P. – whose reports are tightly condensed – focuses on what was happening within the palace – to no less a person than Olympias,
Myrtale* awake all night – severe headache.
Temporary blindness. Myrtale told handmaid that Zeus made love to her. She was not strong enough for him.
Story repeated among servants. Believed to be nonsense as queen watched all night. Despite all, servants relieved – Myrtale [was] feared to be dying.
Both these reports are dated, which is how we now that Olympias suffered her migraine, or visit from Zeus, on the night of the storm. What is intriguing, though, is the fact that Olympias saw fit to tell a servant that Zeus had had sex with her.
Golden myrtle wreath of Queen Meda found in the tomb of Philip II of Macedon, Vergina, c.336 BCE.
She must have known that there was a fair chance the handmaid would gossip about it and that the information might eventually come to Philip’s ears.
Would he appreciate hearing that he had been cuckolded by a god? But maybe that is what Olympias wanted.
Maybe she wanted him to be angry, and even fearful.We’ll come back to this idea later on. A few days after the storm, P. sent another report to Athens.
It gives a fascinating, if rather unnerving, insight into Olympias’ character.
Myrtale entered her bed chamber.
Stood at her offering table. Offerings made. [She] said, You blessed me and I was not afraid.
She took a knife. Exposed her left breast and cut it next to her nipple letting the blood drop onto the offering table. She repeated the words – you blessed me, and I was not afraid. I left the bed chamber in fear.
Several weeks now passed during which – Philip and Olympias’ wedding aside – nothing of consequence happened. Then, B. suddenly reported that there was, … great consternation among seers.
They walk quickly and with darting eyes through the palace, seeing everyone but speaking to no one.
The servants and guards are very worried. Even Parmenion looked anxious as he drilled the men this afternoon.
B.’s next few reports contained no further information. But Athens wanted to know more.
It is very difficult to obtain information.
The seers no longer walk among us but either with one another or in the shadows.
When they meet, they admit no servants or slaves. Even the guards are told to wait outside.
In the end, it was P. who came good. One of the seers fell ill.
As he lay on his deathbed, he spoke to his son who, it seems, was also a seer. P. was present waiting on Aristander.
Aristander** worried for Olympias.
Philip’s dreamt he sealed [her] womb. [Has she been] unfaithful?.
Aristander told his son seers have advised Philip to ignore dream
[. U]rged him to do same in future. Coughing fit. Expired.
There is no mention here of the ‘fact’ (according to Plutarch) that Philip – after sealing Olympias’ womb, put a seal in the shape of a lion on it.
Could it be that this detail was added a later date – after Alexander had proved his leonine nature?
Perhaps, but it is worth noting the following report that P. wrote in late 357 BC.
Olympias did not bleed this month. The Telmessian*** confirmed she is with child. Olympias excited.
[She asked] what manner of child she would give birth to.
[Aristander said i]f her child has her blood then he will be exceedingly strong and cunning.
In the 4th century BC Macedonia, a Greek-speaking kingdom of Northern Greece, under the leadership of Phillip II, set out to unify the Mediterranean world.
Macedonia’s quest for hegemonic stability brought it into a direct conflict with old established Hellenic powers like Thebes, Sparta and most of all Athens.
The ancient Macedonians did not speak Greek, but their tongue was a Greek dialect (which could not be understood by the Greeks).
During Philotas’ trial, Alexander asks Parmenion’s son if he will give his defense using his ‘native language’.
When Philotas replies that he will speak Greek, Alexander uses this to score a nationalist point against him (see Curtius VI.9.34-36).
Ironically, the reason why Philotas decides to use Greek is because he wants more people to understand him.
Rather than use the word ‘unify’, which for me suggests that Philip wanted to make all peoples equal under his rule, I would say simply that he wanted to conquer them.
Philip was no idealist. He was in the business of winning power.
Had he lived longer, maybe that would have changed – we’ll never know.
Olympias bedridden. Child kicks her with great strength.
Impatient to be born. Olympias said It is as if I have a lion inside me, not a baby. Many servants now afraid to go near her lest the lion break out.
This would tie in with Plutarch’s sources who say that he – Aristander of Telmessus – was the only seer to correctly interpret Philip’s dream as meaning his wife was pregnant rather than unfaithful.
Alexander the great lion helmet
In October of that year, Hephaestion died. Alexander followed him to the grave the following June.
The widows did not long outlive their husbands for both were murdered at the behest of Roxane and Perdiccas not long later.
( An alternative (French) spelling for the female given name Roxanne; from the Persian Roshanak, Perdiccas became a general in Alexander the Great’s army and participated in Alexander’s campaign against Achaemenid Persia.
On interning in Persia, Alenaxnder claimed to be heir of the Achaemenid kings, and burned Persepolis while taking the treasure there of.
What of Ochus? Neither the Vulgate or good sources make any reference to him. However, given that Staeira II’s and Drypetis’ murders were politically inspired it has been assumed that Ochus would have been killed for the same reason.
To secure his throne he put to death most of his relatives. In 356 he ordered all the satraps (governors) of the Achaemenid empire to dismiss their mercenaries.
He also forced Athens to conclude peace and to acknowledge the independence of its rebellious allies (355).
However, the Athenian spies at work in Babylon, following Alexander’s story offer a very different and surprising version of events.
Their reports begin familiarly enough. On the day after Alexander’s death, a spy on Roxane’s staff stated that,
… while I busied myself with the cleaning of [Roxane’s] quarters, she spoke but feet away from me to Perdiccas. They were plotting. He wanted power. She wanted life. He offered [Roxane] what she wanted in return for her absolute loyalty.
Three days later, the same spy – presumably while working in Roxane’s quarters – saw the queen write her response to Perdiccas.
… [it] contained but two words: I accede.
She gave it to her favorite servant, and urged him to pass it into Perdiccas’ hands and his alone, with all haste.
It is at this point that the story takes its first turn. 2 weeks later, the spy in Perdiccas’ office reported how a Macedonian officer named Amyntas had burst into Perdiccas’ study while he was working.
… [Perdiccas was] angered by Amyntas’ sudden coming but the officer begged him to listen to the reason for it before punishing him. Perdiccas ordered him to continue.
Amyntas advised Perdiccas with great haste and feeling that he had just come from the royal chambers.
Four drunk Macedonian soldiers of the infantry had broken into Ochus, son of Darius’ rooms, assaulted and castrated the boy.
Perdiccas was for a time too shocked by this report to make comment but eventually asked how the soldiers had broken past the prince’s guard.
Amyntas said that one guard had been found dead at his post and the other was missing. Perdiccas cursed him for a traitor.
Unfortunately, Perdiccas then ordered the spy – and every other person except Amyntas – out of the room while they carried on talking alone.
To find out what happened next, we must return to Roxane’s servant-spy.
… [we receive]ed report of the mutilation of Ochus just before our lady [i.e. Roxane] retired for the night.
The staff were much worried about what this might portend for her ladyship but she assured them Ochus was harmed because he was a Persian while she, though also a barbarian, was also Alexander’s wife
This report was written 5 – 7 days (the fragment is not clear) after Ochus was attacked.
… Prince Ochus is near death. No one believes he will survive. Perdiccas has Philip of Arcanania looking after him
Below:
Perdiccas became a general in Alexander the Great’s army and participated in Alexander’s campaign against Achaemenid Persia. Sculpture Murder of Perdiccas
Unfortunately, we do not know when this following report was written.
Given the type of injury that Ochus suffered it was presumably several weeks later.
… [I] saw b Ochus from a distance. He limped heavily but could walk with the aid of a stick. He looked grievously ill.
… three months have past since I saw Prince Ochus. None of the servants I have asked know anything of him. I believe he is dead.
But he wasn’t, as the spy was to discover five days after sending the above report.
Ochus lives. I fell asleep while working in her ladyship’s chambers. When I came to I heard her and Perdiccas talking in the room next door.
I hid and listened to what they said.
“He is finally at ease and is ready to be moved.” “Where will Bagoas take him?”
“To his own village where the eunuch’s own people may care for him.”
“Can we really trust that the boy will not act against us in the future?”
“Ochus has no future. No man will follow one who has been unmanned.”
“Yet still I fear that he may be used by our enemies.”
“You need not. As soon as Philip judged him able to be moved I hid him away from the palace for a reason.
My deception has worked – all now think he died with his sisters.
Three years later, Perdiccas failed to invade Ptolemy’s Egypt.
The same spy who reported on him in Babylon sent this report back to Athens apparently following the failure of the general’s second invasion.
[Perdiccas] knew his officers now hated him and waited for his killers to arrive with a disconsolate heart.
I tried to cheer him but until I mentioned Prince Ochus’ name, he would not listen.
“What do you know of that name?” he asked me. “I know that you did not kill him.” I replied. “How so?”
“For that you only kill when you must not because you can. I refuse to believe you would hurt a boy already in a sense dead,”
“Aye,” he said, “You are right. Death is a monstrous thing and is to be given only to those who are worthy; he was not.
We destroyed his family, his country, and his chance to be remembered by sons and grandsons.
Yes, I intended to kill him with his sisters but when I was about to give the order I felt my tongue stopped.
By what or whom I do not know but for once in my life mercy overcame power. I do not regret it.”
There is a certain contradiction in the reports. The servant-spy implies that Perdiccas never intended to kill Ochus along with Stateira II and Dryeptis – presumably because of his castration – while the spy in Perdiccas’ camp suggests that the boy’s fate was in doubt until just before the sisters were murdered.
above
We have no way of knowing which account is correct.
Inclination, however, would be to go with the servant-spy’s, as the Perdiccan spy’s dialogue smacks of romanticism in terms of the way it talks about tongues being stopped by unknown powers.
By contrast, the servant-spy’s report is much more organic and rational. However, we will never know for sure.”
At all times spies seemed to use insignificance as a protection: slaves who had little to lose, were used to obscurity were believed to be duplicity were seen as useful recruits.
In the last chapter, Did Olympias told her handmaid that had had sex with her because she wanted Philip II to be angry and fearful of her?
This would only make sense if she had a reason for wanting his enmity. But what could that reason be?
Before we look at a possibility, let us look at proof that Olympias did not speak accidentally to her handmaid.
She wanted Philip to turn against her; I am sure of this because at the end of 357 BC, P. sent this report back to Athens,
… [text missing] came to my rooms. Pale. Weak.
[He said] King Philip ordered me to look into his bed chamber.
I remembered Gyges and Candaules. I looked. Olympias lay upon her bed.
Naked. A snake was curled round her thigh. Its tail rested upon her [pubic] hair.
Its head rested upon her breast. [Philip said] She is a witch. Look at what I have to suffer. Look. He w[a]s drunk.
Plutarch states that Olympias may have belonged to a snake worshiping Dionysian religion and that, [i]t was Olympias’ habit to enter into… states of possession and surrender herself to the inspiration of the god with even wilder abandon than others…
‘Look at what I have to suffer’.
These words indicate not only Philip’s upset but the fact that Olympias was pursuing a policy of upsetting him as much as possible without being openly disloyal.
Judging by Plutarch’s description of her religion, she had chosen the perfect vehicle to do this.
But, again, why was Olympias making such an effort to anger and distress her husband?
At the same time as she was sleeping with her snakes, B. was writing,
I witnessed another fight in the market place today – once again between Macedonians and a group of Epirotians.
The Macedonians were complaining that there are too many Epirotians in Pella today; that they upset their wives and children; that they cast spells upon both friends and enemies; that they want to seize the throne for Epirus [my emphasis].
Did the fights in Pella just happen or were they orchestrated?
The Macedonians clearly thought there was more to them than just the violence.
If they were orchestrated, perhaps Olympias’ religious ‘devotion’ was simply a ruse to destabilize her husband so that he was a shadow of his former self; a softening up exercise such as the street fighters were engaged in.
It seems incredible that Olympias might have been plotting against Philip at such an early stage, but one day, murder did – in the eyes of many – enter her mind, for she has been plausibly accused of orchestrating Pausanias’ murder of the king.
The most famous actually, was the case of Pausanias, a spartan general who was betrayed by his slave who spoke about his treasonous correspondence with the Persian army.
In ancient Greece, the prodromoi were skirmisher light cavalry. Their name (ancient Greek prοdromoi, lit. “precursors,” “runners-before,” or “runners-ahead”) implies that these cavalry ‘moved before the rest of the army’ and were therefore intended for scouting and screening missions.
The prodromoi maintained a covering screen, without engaging, and sent riders back to Alexander—first with preliminary reports of Persian presence, then with an estimate of numbers.
No attack was made until Alexander so commanded, and then only when reinforced with two ilai of Royal and Companion cavalry.
The Persians, said to number “no more than a thousand,” were also referred to as a reconnaissance force.
One might note that Alexander’s vanguard (the foremost part of an advancing army or naval force) served to some extent as a screening force, preventing the Persian cavalry from getting close enough to his main body to get a good look.
Yet in this instance we see a complementary and deleterious aspect of large reconnaissance forces—their very presence indicated the proximity of a large army.
The ancients recognized both positive and negative aspects and attempted various solutions.
Xenophon portrayed Cyrus disguising his preceding psiloi as brigands—these men would attempt to capture any who saw them, but even those who escaped would be led by the disguise to misinterpret their presence.
The use of very large vanguards seems more of a Macedonian and Persian than phenomenon.
The difference in practice should not be surprising a survey of different reconnaissance methods of the belligerents. Xenophon recommended the use of two separate contingents, one preceding the other, in especially dangerous country.
There are no recorded examples of such practice, but the suggestion indicates at least one mind alive to the consideration of reconnaissance doctrine and may perhaps originate in his own experience.
https://thesecondachilles.com
Information Gathering in Ancient Greece
by Frank Santi Russell
Cf. A. Pauli, “Prñdromow,” RE 23, no. 1 (1957): 102–4.
Arrian Anab. 1.12.7, 13.1.
Information Gathering in Classical Greece
Macedonian prodromoi/sarissophoroi
Aeneas Tacticus’ “How To Survive Under Siege”