by Amanda
sources was consistently hostile towards Alexander.
Third, one should note how historical interpretations have changed
over recent decades. In the period immediately after World War II the
immense influence of W.W. Tarn’s book (1948) gave Alexander the image
of a benign propagator of the Western civilization and the brotherhood of
the various peoples within one empire. The work of another great scholar
from that period, F. Schachermeyr (1973), gave us the heroic image of this
great Macedonian and it is not surprising that the first edition of his
monumental biography (1947) is entitled Ingenium und Macht. However,
scholars subscribing to this traditional view of Alexander (e.g. Hammond
or Lane Fox) are now very much a minority among historians. The tragic
consequences of 20th-century militarism and totalitarianism, a gradual
departure from European colonialism and the mission of taking up ‘the
white man’s burden’ as well as from the traditional world outlook in the
postmodern era inevitably led to a revision or even deconstruction of
Alexander the Great’s character. The process of diminishing Alexander’s
greatness has been continuing since the 1950s. A decisive blow to the
predominance of Tarn’s image of Alexander was delivered by E. Badian
(1960, 1964), for whom the Macedonian prefigured the 20th-century
dictators Stalin and Hitler, being preoccupied with organising large-scale
purges and surrounded by the ‘loneliness of power’. The next step in the
new trend was to reject the notion that Alexander was motivated by any
grand ideas or non-military objectives. Today’s chief proponents of this
minimalist view, represented above all by P. Green, A.B. Bosworth and I.
Worthington, have reduced Alexander’s life to purely a matter of military
history. Excluding his talents as a commander (although sometimes
questioned too), Alexander has now all too frequently been depicted as a
megalomaniac, alcoholic (most vividly: O’Brien 1992; more balanced:
Kets de Vries, 2004), tyrant and hothead who for no profound reason laid
xii
Preface
waste to the local cultures of Europe, Asia and Africa and thus, as it is
sometimes asserted, is to be blamed for radical Islam’s hatred of the West
(Prevas, 2004). Such extreme views may only be expressed if one treats
sources very selectively, and that surely indicates that the pendulum of
reaction against the over idealisation of the great Macedonian has swung
too far in the opposite direction (Holt, 1999a; Briant, 2002). Nonetheless, I
believe, that without either idealizing or deconstructing Alexander, his
times may be reassessed from a non-military perspective. For instance in
the light of recent research of 4th-century Greek society it is worthwhile to
consider the reasons why Macedonian policies succeeded or failed on
either side of the Aegean Sea. The last quarter century’s breakthroughs in
research into Achaemenid Persia in fact demand that the effectiveness of
Alexander’s policies in the various countries of the Persian Empire be
reviewed in terms of his attitude towards Achaemenid tradition and
cultural conflicts during his campaign in the East. Although for a long
time yet to come no doubt no one will dare formulate any grand theories
the way Tarn did, there is now enough room to make careful
generalisations and sum up the historical discussions of the last few
decades.
This book presents the story of Alexander strictly on the basis of
ancient sources. In the footnotes I have endeavoured to refer to all primary
and most secondary ancient sources. On the other hand, for all effort to
synthesise modern scholarship in this book, no attempt has been made to
cite all modern literature concerning Alexander and his epoch. The sheer
volume of such works would make the task quite unfeasible and, from the
point of view of most readers, both tedious and unnecessary. Those
specifically interested in historiography concerning Alexander the Great
can refer to specialist literature dealing with this subject (e.g. Seibert,
1972). Footnotes in this book may serve to inform the reader of the most
important historical discussions of recent decades. The names of ancient
authors and the titles of their works are quoted using the abbreviations also
applied in the Oxford Latin Dictionary and Liddell, Scott, Jones’ Greek-
English Lexicon. The titles of periodicals are abbreviated according to
L’Année Philologique. When ancient times are discussed in this book,
unless otherwise stated, all given dates are BC/ BCE.
Finally, I have the pleasant task of thanking all the people and
institutions without whose help this book would never have been
published. The several years of research and especially the enquiries made
in the libraries of Vienna and Oxford were possible thanks to generous
grants from the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research and the
Lanckoroński Foundation as well as the hospitality of St John’s College
Alexander the Great
xiii
Oxford within the Oxford Colleges Hospitality Scheme and on other
occasions. I am grateful to the University of Wrocław for financing my
trips to Turkey and Iran for the purposes of seeing for myself the
topographic problems Alexander’s expedition must have encountered. The
English version of this book is based on the Polish edition of 2007, with
numerous improvements and corrections. The translation was produced by
Witold Zbirochowski-Kościa, whose careful attention to details, linguistic
skills and patience I would like to acknowledge in this place. It could be
made thanks to a grant from the Foundation for Polish Science which had
also supported the Polish edition of my book. I have presented various
research problems at conferences in Rzeszów, Barcelona, Kraków and
Wrocław as well as historical society meetings and seminars in Wrocław,
Warsaw, Toruń, Liverpool, Taipei, Delhi, and Delphi. I would like to
thank those, too many to name here, who provided insightful and
frequently critical comments during the discussions that followed my
lectures. Some mistakes I have been able to correct thanks to talks with
many scholars. Among those I am particularly grateful to, are: Prof.
Fergus Millar, late Prof. Józef Wolski, Prof. Ewa Wipszycka-Bravo, Prof.
John Davies, late Prof. Tadeusz Kotula, Prof. Alicja Szastyńska-Siemion,
Prof. Maurice Sarte, Prof. Christopher Tuplin, Prof. Leszek Mrozewicz,
Prof. Andrzej Łoś, Dr. Zofia Archibald, Dr. John Ma, Dr. Gościwit
Malinowski, Nicholas Purcell and Robin Lane Fox. But I dedicate my
most heartfelt thanks to my wife, Małgorzata MoŜdŜyńska-Nawotka, who
has over the years provided the unstinting support that allowed me to
research and write this book.
CHAPTER I:
CHILDHOOD, FAMILY, MACEDONIA
1. Birth of Alexander
In Antiquity people believed that the birth of someone destined to be great
was accompanied by signs, portents and strange happenings. Alexander’s
biographer, Plutarch, states that his mother, Olympias, dreamt of a fiery
thunderbolt that had entered her body, whereas his father, Philip II,
envisioned in his dream a seal on his wife’s body in the shape of a lion,
which allegedly foretold the extraordinary ‘lion-like’ nature of his son.
Another persistently repeated tale has Philip seeing in a dream on the night
of consumption Olympias having sexual intercourse with a giant serpent,
presumably an incarnation of the god Ammon from the Siwah Oasis in the
Libyan Desert. According to a much later legend, emerging no doubt after
Alexander’s visit to Siwa, Philip was then told by the Apollo Oracle at
Delphi to henceforth offer sacrifices to Ammon and was also told a
prophecy that he would lose the eye with which he had seen the deity lying
next to Olympias.1 Such tales could emerge from the traditional view that
Olympias had in her native Epirus engaged in mysterious Orphic rituals,
which were much feared by the Greeks, and an important element of this
practice was the breeding of serpents in her home.2 The belief that
Alexander was conceived by the god Ammon did not mean in the opinions
of contemporaries that he was not the son of Philip. After all, they knew
the myth of Alexander’s forebear Heracles, who was the son of Alcmene
but also of the god Zeus. At various stages in his career, Alexander
himself sometimes boasted that he was the son of Philip and at other times
allowed people to believe that he was conceived by the god Ammon.3
1 Ephor., FGrH, 70 F217; Plu., Alex., 2-3; Paus., 4.14.7; Luc., Alex., 7; Just., 11.11.3, 12.16; It. Alex., 12; see Baynham, 1998, p. 149; Hamilton, 1999, pp. 4-6.
For an alternative version of the legend, but one still maintaining the notion of
divine conception and lion shaped seal, see: Ps.-Callisth., 1.4-8.
2 Cic. Div., 2.135: Plu., Alex., 2.9; see Lane Fox, 1973, pp. 44-45.
3 Ogden, 1999, pp. 27-28.
2
Chapter I
The Greek authors, always eager to synchronize historic events, state
that Alexander was born the same night one of the Seven Wonders of the
World, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, was burnt down by Herostratus
in the desire of immortalizing his name. The goddess was too busy
assisting Olympias in the birth of Alexander to protect her own temple
from destruction. Iranian magi living next to the temple lamented, for they
foresaw that what had happened that night would bring great misfortune to
Asia, which meant the Kingdom of Persia.4 Plutarch reports an anecdote
that Philip, while laying siege to the town of Potidaea, in one day received
news that his army commander Parmenion had routed the Illyrians, that his
race-horse had won a race at the Olympic Games, and that his wife had
given birth to Alexander. We know nothing more about the battle with the
Illyrians and therefore have no means of establishing the date. There is an
image on Philip II’s coins of a cloaked rider with a Macedonian hat
( kausia) on his head commemorating an Olympic victory, though we
cannot be certain whether they refer to an individual horse race or a
chariot race. Far more significant is that fact that this was almost certainly
the first ever Macedonian victory at the Olympic Games. Although
Herodotus does in fact report an earlier success at the time of Philip’s
predecessor Alexander I, this was possibly just a propaganda ploy
invented by the Macedonian court, for this king’s name has not been
preserved on the list of Olympic victories. Philip’s Olympic success
probably occurred on 26th July 356, whereas Alexander was born on the
sixth day of the Athenian month Hekatombaion, called Loos in
Macedonia, which according to modern calculations would have most
probably been either 19th or 20th July 356.5
2. Macedonia
Alexander’s fatherland was situated to the north of Thessaly with borders
that have not been precisely defined but most certainly did not resemble
the borders of today’s Macedonian state (FYROM)6 and were much closer
4 Hegesias, ap. Plu., Alex., 35-36 ( FGrH, 142 F3); Timae., ap. Cic., N.D. , 2.69; Cic., Div. , 1.47; Plu., Alex. , 2.7. Burning of Artemisium by Herostratus: Str., 14.22.1; Solinus, 183.23. Magi in Ephesus: Str., 14.1.23. See Briant 1996, p. 875;
Shabazi 2003, pp. 7-14. Asia as the Persian empire: Nawotka 2004.
5 Plu., Alex. , 3.5-8; Plu., mor. , 105a; Just., 12.16.6. Brown 1977, pp. 76-77; Badian 1982, p. 38; Bosworth 1988, p. 19; Hammond 1992, pp. 356-357; Hamilton 1999,
pp. 7-9. Alexander I at the Olympic Games: Hdt., 5.23; but see Borza 1982, pp. 8-
13; Thompson 1982, p. 113.
6 On fluidity of the name Macedonia see: Czamańska, Szulc 2002.
Childhood, Family, Macedonia
3
to the borders of today’s Greek province of Macedonia. The fluidity of
Macedonia’s borders even in Antiquity means that from the political
history point of view it is most convenient to define the borders as the
circumference of those territories ruled by Macedonian kings excluding
the conquered areas of Greece, Thrace and Asia. During the reigns of
Philip II and Alexander the kingdom was divided into two: Lower
Macedonia in the east and Upper Macedonia in the southwest. At the start
of his reign Philip II only had control of Lower Macedonia, which was
indeed the cradle of the Argead dynasty.
Upper Macedonia is a mountainous region stretching from the Emathia
Plain to the Pindos Mountains and including the catchment area of the
river Haliakmon as well as the upper reaches of the river Axios (Vardar).
Almost the entire region (90%) is over 500 m above sea level, whereas
50% is above 1,500 m. In that part of the Balkan Peninsula the main
mountain ranges run longitudinally. The Haliakmon Valley is situated
between two such ranges, those of the Pindos Mountains and the southern
ranges of the Dinaric Alps (Peristeri, Vitsi, Vourinos). In Antiquity Upper
Macedonia was divided into several smaller states and in the Haliakmon
Valley itself there were: Orestis in the north, Tymphaeaa to the south and
Elimeia to the east of Tymphaea. The remaining Upper Macedonia states
were situated further east and separated from Lower Macedonia by the
Vermion range, namely: Palagonia in the north and Lyncestis and Eordaia
in the south. Upper Macedonia was ethnically mixed. Apart from the
Macedonian tribes such as the Elimeians and Lyncestis, there were tribes
more closely related to the Greek Molossians of Epirus, such as the
Orestians. Illyrian elements have also been traced among the inhabitants of
this part of Macedonia. The ethnic diversity of Upper Macedonia is
considered an important factor accounting for its looser ties with the
central authorities in Lower Macedonia. The Upper Macedonia tribes were
ruled by their own dynasties, the most important of which was the
Lyncestis’ royal family, the Bacchiads once expelled from Corinth by the
tyrant Cypselus. Relations between the Argeads and the ruling families of
Upper Macedonia were frequently marked by mutual distrust and political
rivalry. If we add to that the basic weakness of the Lower Macedonia
government, it is hardly surprising that before Philip ascended to power,
bonds between the Argead kingdom
and the Upper Macedonia states were
at best loose.7
Lower Macedonia was situated by the Thermaic Gulf, in an alluvial
valley where the silt had accumulated from the rivers Haliakmon, Axios,
7 Errington 1990, chapter i; Billows 1994, p. 3.
4
Chapter I
Ludias and Gallikos. It was surrounded by mountain ridges (Paiko, Voras,
Vermion and Pieria) and the Pieria plain at the foot of Mount Olympus.
One has to remember that in the 4th century BC the shore of the Thermaic
Gulf was some 30 km further inland than it is today and thanks to the river
Ludias seafaring ships could sail up to the port of Pella, the capital of
Philip and Alexander’s kingdom. A large part of low-lying Emathia
situated above that river was in Antiquity a barren uninhabitable
marshland. The area was not drained until the 1920s, and no traces of
earlier permanent human settlement have been found there. Attempts to
drain these marshes during Philip’s reign were doomed to fail because
contemporary technical knowledge was quite inadequate to deal with the
sheer scale of the task. Worse still, the predominance of marshland in parts
of Lower Macedonia resulted in malaria epidemics that affected not only
the local population but also agricultural output. Settlements were
concentrated on terraces on the sides of the bordering mountains. On the
south side of the lower course of the Haliakmon and to the south of the
Emathia, close to today’s village of Vergina, lay the first Agread capital –
Aegae. The fertile and well irrigated parts of Macedonia allowed for the
growing of crops and rearing of cattle. In the 4th century many Macedonians
were still engaged in herding, taking cattle up in the mountains in the
summer and then taking the herds down to lower lying areas for the
winter. We also know that wine was produced, though on account of its
cooler climate outside of the seacoast there were no olive trees, so typical
for the Mediterranean zone. At least 1/3 of ancient Macedonia was
covered with forests and all wood collected from these forests belonged to