Cleophis

Cleophis (Sanskrit: Kripa?) was the mother of Assakenos or Assacanus, the reigning war-leader of the Assakenoi or Assacani people at the time of Alexander’s invasion (Curtius). The Assakenoi (Sanskrit Ashvakas: from Ashva = horse) were a free people (Republican) who formed a sub-section of the Kambojas (q.v.) of Paropamisade and lived in parts of Swat and Buner valleys during Alexander’s invasion. The habitat of the Assakenoi roughly corresponded to modern Kafirstan (Dr R. K. Mukerjee). Since this region was comparatively more Indo-Aryan than Iranian in language and culture, hence the Assakenoi have been referred to as Indians by Arrian. Their territory stretched as far as Indus on the east with the capital at Massaga (Sanskrit Mashakavati) which was a formidable fortress situated not far to the north of the Malakand Pass. In modern times, it corresponds to Mashkine located between the rivers Panjkora and Kunar about 24 miles from Bajour. The Assakenoi were excellent breeders of horses as well as expert cavalrymen who also rented their cavalry services (as mercenaries), hence they also earned the popular nickname as Ashvakas i.e expert cavalrymen. They are referred to as Ashvakayanas in Panini's Ashtadhyayi. The coins known as Vatashvaka are attributed to these peoples. There was also a western branch of the Ashvakas located in the region watered by the rivers Alishang and Kunar. They are the Aspasioi of the classical writings. They were Iranian branch of the Kambojas since the classical writers address them as Aspasioi (from Iranian Aspa = horse). They are known as Ashvayanas in Panini's Ashtadhyayi. . The dividing line between Iran and India was approximately the Panjkora (or Guraeus) river. According to Paul Goukowsky, Iranian language was spoken on the north of Kunar where as Pracrit on its south.

Alexander’s war with Ashvakas
Alexander personally led a campaign against the Aspasioi and later against the Assakenoi. The Assakenoi (Ashvakas) had opposed the invader with an army of 20,000 cavalry, 38,000 infantry and 30 elephants (as stated by Curtius). A contingent of 7,000 Kamboj soldiers were brought from Abhisara. The Ashvakas had fought valiantly and offered a stubborn resistance to the invader in many of their strongholds. Massaga was the scene of the bloodiest fight. Alexander received a serious wound in the fighting at Massaga. The city could not be stormed even after five days (nine days according to Curius) of bloody fighting. On the fifth day, Assakenos, the Chieftain of the Ashvakas fell a martyr in the field. Thereupon, the supreme command of the military operations was assumed by Cleophis. Like her son, Cleophis stood determined to defend her motherland to the last extremity. The example of Cleophis assuming the command of the military operations also brought the entire women of the locality into the fighting. See also:.

Referring to Massaga battle, Greek historian Arrian (Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon') asserts that only 25 soldiers of Alexander had died during the five days of bloody fighting at Massaga. . He further asserts that after the fall of their chieftain, the Ashvakas became dispirited and sent an embassy to Alexander for a ceasefire. An agreement was reached between Alexander and the tribes-people, according to which the latter were to vacate the fort and the mercenaries were to join Alexander's forces. After vacating the fort, tribes-people had gathered on a ridge when Alexander (according to Arrian) received intelligence through his spies that the mercenaries did not want to fight against their own countrymen and were planning to escape during the night. Alexander surrounded the ridge and slaughtered all the tribes-men gathered there. . But the accounts of Curtius (Quintus Curtius Rufus) do not support any such train of events. The earlier accounts of Diodorus (Diodorus Siculus) also give a complete lie to the above accounts of Arrian. Diodorus, nowhere refers to any agreement whereby the tribes-men or mercenaries had agreed to join Alexander's forces but later on backed out and planned to escape under the pall of darkness. Rather, he specifically states that the tribes-people had vacated the fort in accordance with the agreement and had gone about 80 stadia when Alexander, who was 'actuated by an implacable enmity' and had kept his troops under arms, ready for action, treacherously fell upon the tribes-people and made a great slaughter of their ranks. .  Diodorus gives a very graphic and vivid account of the battle that had ensued and also greatly applauds the courage and heroism shown by the tribes-men and their women against Alexanderian forces. Still another Greek chronicler Plutarch (Mestrius Plutarchus) prior to Arrian, attests that "Alexander incurred serious losses and accordingly, concluded a treaty of peace with Assaceni but, afterwards, as they were going away, set upon them while they were on the road and committed a complete carnage". Rightly therefore, Plutarch swears at Alexander for his treacherous action and calls it "a foul blot on the his martial fame". . "In view of these clear remarks, the account of Arrian seems to be a tendentious effort to window-dress a despicable act of abject treachery and perfidy". Curtius attests: "Not only did Alexander slaughter the entire population of Massaga, but also did he reduce its buildings to rubble". The above statement also clearly shows that Alexander must have suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Assakenian Kambojas so that he consequently lost his mental poise and attacked the buildings of Massaga, thus committing arson and man-slaughter to give vent to his boiling wrath.

From the foregoing discussion, it becomes quite clear that not only did Arrian throw a veil over the treachery of Alexander, but also did he downplay the bravery and heroism of the Ashvakas when the latter faced with sudden treacherous onslaught of Alexander. His claims that only 25 soldiers of Alexander had died in five days of bloody fighting for the control of Massaga fort, cast very serious doubts on his integrity as an impartial chronicler. The war accounts of Diodorus who preceded Arrian by about 200 years differ materially from the latter and gives a lie to Arrian. Also the accounts of Plutarch indisputably prove that the initiative for the peace treaty came not from the Ashvakas but from Alexander himself which clearly indicates that Alexander had suffered severe losses in this battle with the Assakenoi. Arrian indeed seems to be a partial chronicler and a liar on top of it who has intentionally tried to misrepresent the historical facts.

Main article: Alexander's Conflict with the Kambojas

On Cleophis’s alleged intrigue with Alexander
Based on the accounts of some later classical writers like Curtius or Justin, some people tend to believe in the tale of Cleophis’s intrigue with Alexander. However not only are the statements of various classical writers inconsistent but they are often contradictory so that that the Cleophis story seems to be baseless and a mere romantic invention

Diodorus's evidence on Cleophis
Diodorus (93 c BCE 30 c BCE), the earliest historian on the subject, does not refer to any matrimonial alliance or intrigue of Cleophis with Alexander. Diodorus simply attests that after the finalisation of terms of treaty of friendship between Ashvakas and Alexander executed under oaths, Cleophis sent precious gifts to Alexander with a message that she expressed her appreciation of Alexander’s greatness and assured him that she would comply with the terms of the treaty. But since Alexander himself violated the treaty by treacherously attacking the Ashvakas and the mercenaries from Abhisara as they were leaving the city, the Ashvakas led by Cleophis gave a determined fight-back to the unprincipled and treacherous invader, thus shedding the last drop of their blood. Even Ashvakan women took up arms emmasse and joined the battle fighting side by side with their husbands. Diodorus attests that Ashvakas women fought side by side with their menfolk thus  'preferring death to a life of dishonor' . This scenario shows that Cleophis had engaged herself in the fight, but it is too difficult to speculate as to what happened to her in the end—whether she fell a martyr in the battle-field or else fell into the enemy's hands is anybody's guess. According to Curtius and Arrian, Cleophis was captured along with her young grand daughter.

Plutarch's evidence on Cleophis
Plutarch (46 c AD 127 c AD) too does not give any indication or hint of Cleophis’s intrigue with Alexander. He simply reprimands Alexander for his unprincipled conduct and violation of the treaty of peace and friendship with the Ashvakas; and calls it a blot on the fair name of a great soldier.

Arrian's evidence on Cleophis
Even Arrian (92 c AD – 175 c AD) makes no reference whatsoever, to a Cleophis-Alexander matrimonial alliance or intrigue. He only says that Alexander captured the mother and daughter of Assakenos (Chieftain of the Ashavakas) who had been killed on the fifth day of the fighting at Massaga.

Curtius's evidence on Cleophis
Curtius, an Roman historian belonging to the later half of the first c AD, gives some different touches to Alexander-Cleophis episode, here and there. He says that king Assacenus had died before the invasion of Alexander and Cleophis was his mother, not wife. When the defense of the citadel became impossible on account of the extreme pressure of the enemy's assault, she "sent down envoys to the King to sue for pardon". "The Queen herself", Curtius goes on, " having placed her son; still a child, at Alexander's knees, obtained not only pardon, but permission to retain her former dignity, for she was styled queen and some believed that this indulgent treatment was accorded rather to the charms of her person than to pity for her misfortunes. At all events, afterwards she gave birth to a son who received the name Alexander whoever his father may have been”

Dr Buddha Prakash comments on the above statements of Curtius: ''“It is clear from this statement that Curtius himself was not sure of the veracity of the floating rumors about the marriage of Alexander with Cleophis. He was aware of these reports and mentioned them in passing without committing himself as to their correctness''. Similar are the views of Dr William Woodthorpe Tarn.

Justin's evidence on Cleophis
Justin, (Marcus Junianus Justinus) alone tersely mentions this event as if he treats it as a proved fact. Justin asserts that Cleophis recovered her kingdom and position by sleeping with Alexander and bore him a son called Alexander. Justin further remarks: "Queen Cleophis, for allowing her chastity to be violated, was thenceforth called by the Indians the 'royal harlot'  (scortum regium).

"But Justin is very late author and his statement can not be accepted against the four historians who have better claims to be relied upon".

According to another view, Curtius himself may have invented the lurid tale to excite his Roman readers about the decadence of the opulent Orient. Berve thinks that certain elements of this episode found their way in the Candace story of the Alexander Romance.

Prof Edward A. Freeman on Justin and Curtius
On the trustworthiness of Justin and Curtius, Edward Augustus Freeman, Regius Professor of Modern History (Oxford), in his Historical Essays observes that Justin is quite a weak and careless writer. And Curtius is not more than a romantic story teller who can easily lose track and stray from truth.

Conflicting views
There is no unanimity among the classical writers on the personal history of Cleophis. While some writers say that Cleophis was the wife of Assakenos (the war-leader of the Ashvakas), Curtius says that she was his mother. Arrian also refers to her as his mother. According to Curtius, Assakenos had died before Alexander's invasion but according to Arrian, he was killed on the fifth day of the Massaga siege whereafter the supreme command went to Cleophis. It is also pointed out that Cleophis was captured along with her teen-aged granddaughter after the fall of Massaga. There are conflicting details on her own issues too. Her one son called Erix by Curtius and Aphrikes by Diodorus had led the flying defenders of the famous fortress of Aornos against the Greeks. Her another son said to be Amminais had recruited 7000 Kamboja soldiery from Abhisara. According to Curtius, at the surrender of Massaga, Cleophis placed her own little son on Alexander’s lap. On the other hand Metz Epitome points out that it was Cleophis's grandson (not son) whom Cleophis had placed in Alexander' lap. Curtius concedes that Cleophis later bore a son whom she named Alexander, but he does not commit himself as to the identity of the father. On the other hand Justin who is less subtle, maintains that Cleophis had born Alexander a son. But the Metz Epitome makes no mention of any baby born by Cleophis in the post-invasion period. .

Cleophis over 50 at the time of Invasion
Cleophis was a widow mother of the proud and freedom-loving war leaders Assakenos, Aphrikes and Ammanais. Assakenos is stated to have been the father of a young daughter. This clearly proves that Cleophis was grandmother to a teen-aged girl and therefore, must have been over fifty at the time of invasion. It is highly improbable that an Indian woman over fifty years of age and with grand mother's status, a mother of three war-leaders who fought the invader tooth and nail to preserve their self-respect and independence and who probably were of the same age as Alexender, a lady from the most belligrant and warlike tribals of the hills, should get into intrigue with 30 year old Alexander, sleep with him and bear him an illegitimate son. A fantastic tale indeed! One should also not forget the fact that Ashvakas were a ferocious, fiercely independent and self-respecting fanatic tribal people who had an intense hatred of the invaders. They were the first to rise in rebellion and strike the Greek rulers, and within a year when Alexander was still in India, they had assassinated Greek Prefect (i.e. Governor) Nicanor at Massaga and had further declared to eliminate Sisikottos who was from their own kinship and was appointed Governor of Aornos by Alexander. It is highly doubtful that Cleophis living within this kind of culture and psychology and with one of her three grown-up warrior sons still around, could enter into an intrigue with Alexander and be a mother to an illegitimate son! Moreover, the unequivocal statements by Diodorus, the earliest Greek chronicler of this saga, that their women had also fought side by side with their menfolk and  'preferred death to a life of dishonor'  clearly leaves no room for doubt about the psyche, spirit and moral/ethical values of the oriental Massaga women whom Cleophis had led and represented in the battle-field.

Unproven and false allegation
Most scholars therefore, reject Justin’s version of the Cleophis-Alexander intrigue as nothing more than a rumor-based romantic myth. "The classical notices on Cleophis's matrimonial alliance with Alexander are believed to be similar to the baseless rumors about the barber-ancestry of the Nandas, the rulers of Magadha and rest on false and futile slanders that become current among the credulous and misinformed people regarding high personages. But it is quite unhistorical to repose any belief in them".

The following is extract from "The Greeks in India" by celebrated Dr W. W. Tarn, who is an unquestioned authority on this subject : ''"The story of Alexander's intrigue with Cleophis, 'queen' of the Assaceni of Gandhara who ruled in Massaga, is worse than untrue, it is silly; though, unlike the Amazon and ' Memnon's widow', Cleophis really did exist. She was not, however, a queen, for the Assaceni were part of the Asvaka,' one of the 'free peoples' who had neither kings nor queens (if Indians ever were ruled by queens); her son was not king, neither had he died before Alexander came, as Curtius says; every detail in the story is wrong. Her son, actually, was ~ysµwv, the people's war-leader, and she was merely his mother, a woman with a grownup son ( a war-leader would not to be very young) and also a granddaughter; few 'romantic inventions' have miscarried worse. Even Curtius only gives the story as what 'some' believed, leaving direct affirmation to Justin"''.

Conclusions
In nutshell, the story of Cleophis does not appear in the works of earlier writers on Alexander i.e.Diodorus, Plutarch or Arrian, but only finds mention in the accounts of Curtius or Justin or the Metz Epitome of unknown authorship, all of later origin, which has led many scholars to think that story is not true but was concocted by the prurient vulgate sources. According to scholars, a lurid tale was concocted to generate a sensational material to excite the Roman readers about the decadence of the opulent Orient. O Seel and A. V. Gutschmid also believe that Cleophis was not part of original Alexander tradition but was inserted in Roman times (either by Trogus or  by Timagenes..both familiar to Curtius) as an allusion to Cleopatara  VII of Egypt. Later on, Justin picked up the story and made it still more graphic and lurid to impress his Roman audience. Lawrence also remarks: "The story of Cleophis' relations with the Macedonian king is heavily romanticized".

Cleophis was a great leader, a valiant warrior, a skillful administrator and a true patriot who had given a befitting fight possible under the circumstances to an invader and led her people out of the unprecedented crisis at such a critical juncture of their history. It appears that being from "The Fair' Sex", she fell a victim to romantic concotions or indulgences which the weak and careless classical writers like Justin have stamped as if authentic. The women of Massaga were not merely consorts of their husbands, but, faced with adverse situations, they could rise to the occasion with display of administrative and martial skills.

On the trustworthiness of classical accounts
Scholars believe that the values of classical accounts is reduced by the fact that we have a clear evidences of the texts being tampered with in later times. The classical writers also suffered from a superiority complex. They held that the nations conquered by Alexander were barbarous and became civilized by contacts with the Greeks, by whose influence alone, the barbarianism was crushed. We must dismiss from our mind the notion that the statements of classical writers have any special claims to be recognised as true or authentic and based on ascertained facts. According to Dr Buddha Parkash, the historians of Alexander, (like the Indian bards), were motivated with the thought to exaggerate and extol, at any cost, the military achievements of their hero i.e Alexander.

Therefore, the statements of classical writers about Cleophis  also need to be examined more critically and objectively before their being accepted at their face value.

Books and Megazines

 * Historie du bouddhisme Indien, Dr E. Lammotte
 * Alexander the Great, 2003 - Cambridge University Press, W. W. Tarn
 * Political History of Ancient India, 1996, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury
 * The Invasion Of India By Alexander The Great As Described By Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch And Justin, J. W. McCrindle
 * Envy of the Gods: Alexander the Great's Ill-fated Journey Across Asia, John Prevas
 * Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power, Victor Hanson
 * Alexander: A History of the Origin and Growth of the Art of War from the Earliest Times to the Battle of Ipsus, 301 Bc, With a Detailed Account of the Campaigns, 1996- Da Capo Press, Theodore Ayrault Dodge
 * Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, 2002 - Oxford University Press, USA, A. B. Bosworth and E. J. Baynham
 * The Wars of Alexander the Great, 2002- Osprey Publishing, Waldemar Heckel
 * Classical Accounts of India, J. W. McCrindle
 * History and Culture of Indian People, The Age of Imperial Unity, Dr R. C. Majumdar, Dr A. D. Pusalkar
 * The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, S Kirpal Singh
 * These Kamboja People, 1979, K. S. Dardi
 * Ancient India, 2003, Dr V. D. Mahajan
 * Problems of Ancient India, 2000, K. D. Sethna
 * The Pathan., 1967, Olaf Caroe
 * Historical Essays, Second Series, 3rd edition, Edward A. Freeman, M. A., HON. D. C. L. & LL.D., Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford, London Macmillan and Co. And New York,1892
 * Alexander the Great, 2003, Dr W. W. Tarn
 * Studies in Indian History and Civilization, Dr Buddha Parkash
 * Ancient Kamboja, People and the Country, 1981, Dr J. L. Kamboj
 * Hindu Polity, A constitutional History of India in Hindu Times, 1978, p 140, 121, Dr K. P. Jayswal

Wiki Classical Dictionary Link
Krateros (Editor), Article Cleophis in ancientlibrary.com 2005.

Kleophis