LE SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONAL LE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE. L ...

442 ELPIDA KOSMIDOU
by Aristodemos, Demosthenes also notes spoils acquired by Alexander from
his victory over the persians. 12 the questions that such accounts raise are
many, but most importantly: are they accurate, and if so, do they supplement
or contradict the herodotean passage (9.89.4) on thracians of unspecified
origin as the only ones who confronted the persians?
I see no good reason to doubt the literary sources or the suggested
location of the conflict at ennea hodoi, which is located in the area n-ne
of Amphipolis. 13 Macedonian involvement in the area matches well with
the later occupation of ennea odoi by Alexander, which, even though a
good number of scholars place after 478, remains of uncertain date and
duration. 14 If the exclusion of Alexander from any anti-persian coalition by
herodotus was intentional, specific reasons must be sought. If one agrees
with Scaife that herodotus did not in fact favour Alexander as customarily
thought and disapproved of his conduct during the wars, 15 the reasoning
behind Alexander’s omission is not hard to see. however, the matter is
worth pursuing from another point of view: If both accounts are correct,
do they refer to one or to two different encounters with the persians? If
Alexander together with the thracians confronted the persians, their
military collaboration would have made possible later co-operation or at
least a neutral relationship; if not, then separate attacks on the persians
by the Macedonians and thracians, could have initiated later opposition,
but not necessarily. even so, it is reasonable to assume that Alexander
could and did claim immediate control of local resources; if the Bisaltai
or thasians controlled the mines from c.480 to 465, 16 Alexander would
have lacked fresh bullion for minting for almost thirty years, which seems
improbable. 17 It is more likely instead that royal and tribal access to the
mines need not have been mutually exclusive. Cooperative mining upon
12 DeM. 13.24, 12.21. Comments on a related dedication by SAAtSoGloupAlIADelI
2007, 347-9. Cole (1977, 26,n.26) dismisses Aristodemos, but does not
give sufficient reasons for his scepticism. Current scholarship remains indecisive about
Macedonian involvement (now SprAWSKI 2010, 139-40).
13 KoSMIDou and MAlAMIDou 2006, 133-4.
14 pICArD 2006, 270, 275; hAtzopouloS and louKopoulou 1992, 24;
hornBloWer 1991,76; BorzA 1990,120-2; hAMMonD and GrIFFIth 1979,102.
15 SCAIFe 1989.
16 pICArD (2006, 273-7, esp.276) suggests thasian control of the mines from 478
to 470 based on a possible thasian presence at Berge.
17 unless he imported metal from Bisaltia along the Echeidoros river (TAČEVA
1992, 63). however, unlike the Strymon and nestos (lIAMpI 2005, 35, n. 40; poulIoS
2002, 219; lAzArIDIS 1972, 20, 38), there is no evidence that the echeidoros was
navigable.