In turn, Antiochus seems to have held the city in special esteem, and a surviving decree records privileges that Antiochus (or his son) offered to the city for their loyalty. The king, posing as a close reflection of Apollo Soter (hence Antiochus is surnamed Soter after the god), introduced the coins of the god sitting on the omphalos with an arrow. Although the Seleucids emphasized their connection to Apollo, they were certainly not averse to the protection of Heracles, who appears regularly on their early coinage (possibly in imitation of Alexander’s iconography), while (much later) Antiochus I of Commagene (69–34 BCE) is famously portrayed as shaking hands with Heracles in Nemrut Dağ. The increasing association of Apollo with Heracles during the Hellenistic period, especially vis-à-vis their role as protectors of kings, is also reflected in Callimachus, according to whom Zeus replaced Apollo with Heracles as the gatekeeper of the Heavens. Hence, in this section I will revisit the traditions associated with Heracles on the eve of Alexander’s campaign to the East and trace their development under the Seleucids; my argument is that Heracles’ long-standing connections with royalty are gradually enhanced through his syncretism with numerous ANE deities so that his theological profile is enriched, affording his royal protégés access to divine knowledge and a pathway of ascending to godlike status. Alexander had eagerly joined the long line of his ancestors who had meticulously utilized traditional mythology to claim a prestigious pedigree that went right back to Heracles as the progenitor of the Argead house. In fact, it was on account of their connection with Argos and Heracles that the Argeads had been granted the right to participate in the Olympic Games. Equally, it was in this spirit that Isocrates presented Heracles as a model for Philip, who drew on the episode of Heracles’ attack on Troy to legitimize his own campaign against the Persians, a campaign eventually realized under the leadership of Alexander. Therefore, the Macedonian expedition to the east was promoted as fulfilling Philip’s (Heraclean) initiative of avenging the Greeks. Furthermore, Alexander was obviously keen to foster a personal relationship with Heracles, to whom he sacrificed after the defeat of the Getae; he also ordered the procession of the Macedonian army (a forerunner of the Hellenistic form of triumph) in honour of Heracles after the fall of Tyre. There Alexander’s soldiers identified Heracles with Melqart, the leading Phoenician god known for his prominent chthonic and royal associations. As Tarn argued, Callisthenes’ story that Alexander wished to visit Zeus Ammon because he had heard that Heracles and Perseus had done so before him may be true; after all, as Curtius claimed, Alexander was congnoscendae vetustatis avidum and in presenting himself as another Perseus and another Heracles he effectively posed as the last of the Heraclids who was re-claiming kingship under the patronage of father Zeus (of course, in this guise Alexander conveniently also posed as another son of Zeus by a mortal mother). Tarn’s arguments focused on distinguishing between facts and propagandistic tales that originated in the Macedonian royal court and, therefore, he drew attention to the tradition according to which Heracles had failed to conquer Aornos (in modern Punjab), a site that attracted the king’s interest allegedly because he wished to outdo his famous ancestor. According to Strabo, Caucasus, the place where Prometheus had been traditionally subjected to the torturous punishment of Zeus, was now identified with Aornos in Hindu Kush – Alexander would “liberate” the place in an attempt to rival Heracles who had liberated Prometheus from his torture on the peaks of Caucasus. The veracity of the tale, as Tarn and Edmunds pointed out, had been doubted already since antiquity,152 but of course this did not inhibit its proliferation in literature.
Seleucids, Macedonian Glory and Rule of Spears
