Lysimachus had been an attendant upon Alexander during the whole series of his conquests in Asia: there had been nothing of moment transacted, in the success of which he had not partaken. Yet even in his days, when he was king of Thrace, the accounts of those great actions had been so misrepresented, that when a history of them was read in his presence, they seemed quite new to him. It is all very fine, says the prince; but where was I when all this happened? There was a series of events exhibited, with which the person most interested was least acquainted. We may then well imagine, that there existed in the time of Plutarch many mistakes, both in respect to the geography of countries very remote, and to the [378]language of nations, with whom the Romans were little acquainted. The great battle, of which we have been speaking, was confessedly fought at Gaugamela. Ptolemy Ceraunus, who was present, averred it: as did Aristobulus: and it has been recorded by Plutarch and others. It is also adjudged to Arbela by persons of equal credit: and it must certainly have been really there transacted: for notwithstanding the palliating excuse of Plutarch, it is utterly incredible in respect to so great a victory, that the scene of action should be determined by this place, if it were sixty, or, as some say, seventy miles out of the way. But in reality it was at no such distance. Diodorus Siculus says, that Alexander immediately after the victory attacked Arbela, and took it: and found in it many evidences of its being a place of consequence. [379]Θαψας τους τετελευτηκοτας επεβαλε τοις Αρβηλοις, και πολλην μεν ἑυρεν αφθονιαν της τροφης, ουκ ολιγον δε κοσμον, και γαζαν βαρβαρικην, αργυριου δε ταλαντα δισχιλια. The battle was fought so near the city, that Alexander was afraid of some contagion from the dead bodies of the enemy, which lay close by it in great abundance.