THEBES TAKEN BY ASSAULT. gy Amyntas and also by the Agrianian regiment and the bowmen carried the first of the two outworks, as well as a postern gate which had been left unguarded. His troops also stormed the second outwork, though he himself was severely wounded and borne away to the camp. Here the Theban defenders fled back Macedonian army on Thebes, but also as made bj' Perdikkas without orders from Alexander, who was forced to support it in order to preserve Perdikkas from being overwhelmed by the Thebans. According to Ptolemy and Arrian, therefore, the storming of Thebes took place both without the orders, and against the wishes, of Alexander; the capture moreover was effected rap- idly with little trouble to the besieging army (}] llXuaiq 6i' o/.iyov re kqI ov ivv -Kovu Tuv kyovTuv ^vvEVEX'delaa, Arr. i. 9, 9) : the bloodslied and pillage was committed by the vindictive sentiment of the Bceotian allies. Diodorus had before him a very different account. He affirms that Alex ander both combined and ordered the assault — that the Thebans behaved like bold and desperate men, resisting obstinately and for a long time — that the slaughter afterwards was committed by the general body of the assailants; the Baotian allies being doubtless conspicuous among them. Diodorus gives this account at some length, and with his customaiy rhetor- ical amplifications. Plutarch and Justin are more brief; but coincide in tiie same general view, and not in that of Arrian. Polyajnus again (iv. 3 12) gives something different from all. Tome it appears that the narrative of Diodorus is (in its basis, and striking off rhetorical amplifications) more credible than that of Arrian, Admitting the attack made by Perdikkas, I conceive it to have been a por- tion of the general plan of Alexander. I cannot think it probable that Per dikkas attacked without orders, or that Thebes was captured with little resistance. It was captured by one assault (jEschines adv. Ktesiph. p. 524), but by an assault well-combined and stoutly contested — not by one begun without preparation or order, and successful after hardly any resistance. Alexander, after having offered what he thought liberal terms, was not the man to shrink from carrying his point by force ; nor would the Thebans have refused those terms, unless their minds had been made up for strenu- ous and desperate defence, without hope of ultimate success. What authority Diodorus followed, we do not know. He may have fol- lowed Kleitarchus, a contemporary and an iEolian, who must have had <j;oc3 means of information respecting such an event as the capture of TLebes (see Geier, Alexandri M. Historiarum Scriptorcs aetate sup^ares, Lcips. 1844, p. 6-1.52: and Vossius, De Historicis Graicis, i. x. p. 90, ed Westermann). I have due respect for the authority of Ptolemy, but 7 can- sot go along with Geier and other critics who set aside all other witnesses, even contemporary, respecting Alexander, as worthy of little credit, unless where such witnesses are confirmed by Ptolemy or Aristobulus. We must remember that Ptolemy did not compose his book until after he became
