The Creation of Macedonian Power
The rise to international power of the kingdom of
Macedonia1 soon filled the power vacuum
that had been created by the fruitless wars of the Greek city-states with each other in
the early fourth century B.C. and that Xenophon had so acutely summed up at the end his
Hellenica
2. Macedonia was a rough land of mountains and lowland valleys just to the north of
Greece, which had greater natural resources. Life there was harder than in Greece because
the climate was colder and harsher and because the Macedonians' western and northern
neighbors periodically launched devastating raids into Macedonian territory. The
Macedonian population was especially vulnerable to such raids because they generally lived
in small villages and towns without protective walls. That this formerly minor kingdom
become the greatest power in Greece in the latter part of the fourth century and conquered
the Persian Empire must rank as one of the major surprises in ancient military and
political history.
Macedonian Monarchy
Unlike the city-states of Greece,
Macedonia3 was
ruled by a
monarchy4. The power of the king of the Macedonian state was constrained
by the tradition that he was supposed to listen to his people, who were accustomed to
addressing their monarch with considerable freedom of speech. Above all, the king could
govern effectively only as long as he maintained the support of the most powerful
aristocrats, who counted as the king's social equals and controlled large bands of
followers.
Fighting5, hunting, and heavy
drinking6 were the favorite pastimes of these men. The king was expected to demonstrate
his prowess in these activities to show he was a Macedonian man's man capable of heading
the state. Macedonian
queens and royal mothers7 received respect in this
male-dominated society because they came from powerful families in the Macedonian
nobility or the ruling houses of lands bordering Macedonia and bore their husbands the
heirs that they needed to carry on their royal dynasties. In the king's absence these
royal women could vie with the king's designated representative for power at court.
Macedonians and Greeks
Macedonians had their own language related to Greek, but the aristocrats who dominated
Macedonian society routinely learned to speak Greek because they admired the idea of
being Greek and thought of themselves and indeed all Macedonians as Greek by blood. At
the same time, Macedonians looked down on the Greeks to the south in Greece as a soft
lot unequal to the adversities of life in Macedonia.
The Greeks reciprocated this
scorn8. The famed Athenian
orator
Demosthenes9 (384-322 B.C.) lambasted the
Macedonian
king Philip II10 (*359-336) as
“not only not a Greek nor related to the Greeks, but not even a
barbarian from a land worth mentioning; no, he's a pestilence from Macedonia, a region
where you can't even buy a slave worth his salt.”11 Barbed verbal attacks like this one characterized Demosthenes's speeches on
foreign and domestic policy to the Athenian assembly, where he consistently tried to
convince his fellow Athenians to oppose Macedonian expansionism in Greece. His
exceptional rhetorical skill also made him the foremost of his time in the writing of
speeches for other men to deliver in court cases.
The Ambitions of Philip II
The Athenian orator and politician
Demosthenes spoke so forcefully against Philip
II12 because he recognized how
dangerous and
ambitious13 was this king, who was the person most responsible for making Macedonia into an
international power and doing so against heavy odds. For one thing,
strife in the
royal family14 and disputes among the leading aristocrats had always been so
common that Macedonia before Philip's reign had never been sufficiently united to
mobilize its full military strength. So real was the fear of violence from their own
countrymen that Macedonian kings stationed bodyguards not only outside the door to the
royal bedroom but inside the door as well. Moreover, Macedonian princes married earlier
than did most men, soon after the age of twenty, because the instability of the kingship
demanded the production of male heirs as soon as possible.
Philip's Reorganization of the Macedonian Army
The situation in Macedonia was grave in 359 B.C. when the current Macedonian king,
Perdiccas, and 4,000
Macedonian troops were slaughtered15 in battle with the Illyrians, hostile neighbors from the north of Macedonia. In
this moment of crisis, Philip persuaded the aristocrats to recognize him as king in
place of his infant nephew, for whom he was now serving as regent after the loss of the
previous king in the field.
Philip then rallied the army by teaching the
infantrymen an unstoppable new tactic16. Macedonian troops carried thrusting spears fourteen feet long, which they had
to hold with two hands. Philip drilled his men to handle these heavy weapons in a
phalanx formation, whose front line bristled like a lethal porcupine with outstretched
spears. With the cavalry of aristocrats deployed as a strike force to soften up the
enemy and protect the infantry's flanks, Philip's reorganized army promptly
routed
Macedonia's attackers and suppressed local rivals to the new king17.
Philip and the Greeks
After his reorganization of the Macedonian army,
Philip embarked on a whirlwind
of diplomacy, bribery, and military action to make the states of Greece acknowledge
his superiority18. He financed this activity by prodigious spending of
the gold and silver coinage he had minted from the
mines of Macedonia and those
that he captured in Thrace19. A Greek contemporary, the historian
Theopompus20 of Chios, labeled Philip “insatiable and extravagant; he did
everything in a hurry ... he never spared the time to reckon up his income and
expenditure.” By the late 340s B.C. Philip had cajoled or forced most of
northern Greece to follow his lead in foreign policy.
His goal then became to lead
a united Macedonian and Greek army against the Persian Empire21. His announced reason sprung from a central theme in Greek
understanding of the past: the need to avenge the Persian invasion of Macedonia and
Greece of 480 B.C. Philip also feared the potentially destabilizing effect on his
kingdom if his reinvigorated army were left with nothing to do. To launch his grandiose
invasion, however, he needed to strengthen his alliance by adding the forces of southern
Greece to it.
At Athens, Demosthenes used his stirring rhetoric to castigate the Greeks for their
failure to resist Philip: they stood by, he thundered,
“as if Philip
were a hailstorm, praying that he would not come their way, but not trying to do
anything to head him off.”22 Finally, Athens and Thebes headed a coalition of southern Greek states to try to
block Philip's plans. In 338 B.C., Philip and his Greek allies trounced the coalition's
forces at the
battle of Chaeronea23 in Boeotia. The defeated Greek states retained their internal freedom, but they
were compelled to join an
alliance under Philip's undisputed leadership24, called the League of Corinth by modern scholars after the location of its
headquarters.
The Aftermath of the Battle of Chaeronea
The course of later history proved the
battle of Chaeronea25 in 338, in which Philip of Macedon and his Greek allies defeated a coalition of
other Greek states, to have been a decisive turning point in Greek history: never again
would the states of Greece make foreign policy for themselves without considering, and
usually following, the wishes of outside powers. This change marked the end of the Greek
city-states as independent actors in international politics, but they were to retain
their significance as the basic economic and social units of the Greek world. But that
role would be fulfilled from now on as subjects or allies of the new kingdoms that later
emerged from the Macedonian kingdom of Philip and his son Alexander after the latter's
death in 323 B.C. The Hellenistic kingdoms, as these new monarchies are called, like the
Roman provinces that in turn eventually replaced them as political masters of the
Greeks, depended on the local leaders of the Greek city-states to collect taxes for the
imperial treasuries and to insure the loyalty and order of the rest of the citizens.
Alexander's Rise to Power
A disgruntled Macedonian assassinated Philip26 in 336 B.C. Unconfirmed rumors circulated that the murder had been instigated by
one of his several wives, Olympias, a princess from Epirus to the west of Macedonia. In
any case, Philip's son by her,
Alexander27 (356-323 B.C.), promptly
liquidated potential rivals for the throne28 and won recognition as king. In several lightning-fast campaigns, he subdued
Macedonia's traditional enemies to the west and north. Next he compelled the southern
Greeks, who had rebelled from the
League of Corinth29 at the news of Philip's death, to rejoin
the alliance. To demonstrate the price of disloyalty, Alexander
destroyed
Thebes30 in 335 B.C. as punishment for its rebellion from the
League.
Alexander's Hopes
With Greece pacified, Alexander in 334 B.C.
led a Macedonian and Greek army into
Anatolia31 to fulfill his father's plan to avenge Greece by attacking Persia. Alexander's
astounding success in conquering the entire Persian Empire while in his twenties earned
him the title “the Great” in later ages. In his own time, his
greatness consisted of his ability to inspire his men to follow him into hostile,
unknown regions where they were reluctant to go, beyond the borders of civilization as
they knew it. Alexander inspired his troops with his reckless disregard for his own
safety. He often plunged into the enemy at the head of his men, sharing the danger of
the common soldier. No one could miss him in his plumed helmet, vividly colored cloak,
and armor polished to reflect the sun. So intent on conquering distant lands was
Alexander that
he had rejected advice to delay his departure from Macedonia until
he had married and fathered an heir32, to forestall instability in case of his death. He had further alarmed his
principal adviser, an experienced older man, by giving away virtually all his land and
property in order to strengthen the army, thereby creating new landowners who would
furnish troops. “What,” he was asked,” do you have left
for yourself?” “My hopes,” Alexander replied. Those hopes
centered on constructing a heroic image of himself as a warrior as glorious as the
incomparable Achilles of Homer's
Iliad. Alexander always kept a copy of
the
Iliad under his pillow, along with a dagger. Alexander's aspirations
and his behavior represented the ultimate expression of the Homeric vision of the
glorious conquering warrior.
The Attack on the Persian Empire
Alexander
cast a spear into the earth of Anatolia33 when in 334 B.C. he crossed the Hellespont strait from Europe to Asia (in what
is today part of northwestern Turkey), thereby claiming the Asian continent for himself
in Homeric fashion as “territory won by the spear.” The
first
battle of the campaign, at the River Granicus34 in western Anatolia, proved the worth of Alexander's Macedonian and Greek
cavalry, which charged across the river and up the bank to rout the opposing Persians.
Alexander visited the legendary king Midas's old capital of Gordion in Phrygia, where an
oracle had promised the lordship of Asia to whoever could loose a seemingly impenetrable
knot of rope tying the yoke of an ancient chariot preserved in the city. The young
Macedonian, so the story goes, cut the Gordion knot with his sword. In 333 B.C. the
Persian king, Darius, finally faced Alexander in battle at Issus35, near the southeastern corner of Anatolia. Alexander's army defeated its more
numerous opponents with a characteristically bold strike of cavalry through the left
side of the Persian lines followed by a flanking maneuver against the king's position in
the center. Darius had to flee from the field to avoid capture, leaving behind his wives
and daughters, who had accompanied his campaign in keeping with royal Persian tradition.
Alexander's scrupulously
chivalrous treatment of the Persian royal
women36 after their capture at Issus
reportedly boosted his reputation among the peoples of the king's empire.
The Siege of Tyre
When Tyre, a heavily fortified city on the coast of what is now Lebanon, refused
to surrender to him in 332 B.C., Alexander employed the siege machines and catapults
developed by his father to breach its walls37. The capture of Tyre rang the death knoll of the impregnable city-state.
Although successful sieges remained rare after Alexander because well-constructed city
walls still presented formidable barriers to attackers, Alexander's success against Tyre
increased the terror of a siege for a city's general population. No longer could the
citizens of a city-state confidently assume that their defensive system could withstand
the technology of their enemy's offensive weapons indefinitely. The now-present fear
that a siege might actually breach a city's walls made it much harder psychologically
for city-states to remain united in the face of threats from enemies like aggressive
kings.
Alexander in Egypt
Alexander next took over Egypt, where hieroglyphic inscriptions seem to show that
he probably presented himself as the successor to the Persian king38 as the land's ruler rather than as an Egyptian pharaoh. On the coast, to the
west of the Nile River,
Alexander founded a new city in 331 B.C. named
Alexandria39 after himself, the first of the many cities he would later go on to establish as
far east as Afghanistan. During his time in Egypt, Alexander also paid a mysterious
visit to the oracle of the god Ammon, whom the Greeks regarded as identical to Zeus, at
the oasis of Siwah far out in the western Egyptian desert. Alexander told no one the
details of his consultation of the oracle, but the news got out that
he had been
informed he was the son of the god40 and that he joyfully accepted the designation as true.
The Conquest of Persia
In 331 B.C., Alexander crushed the Persian king's main army at the
battle of
Gaugamela41 in northern Mesopotamia near the border of modern Iraq and Iran. He subsequently
proclaimed himself king of Asia in place of the Persian king. For the heterogeneous
populations of the Persian Empire, the succession of a Macedonian to the Persian throne
meant essentially no change in their lives. They continued to send the same taxes to a
remote master, whom they rarely if ever saw. As in Egypt, Alexander left the local
administrative system of the Persian empire in place, even retaining some Persian
governors. His long-term aim seems to have been to forge an administrative corps
composed of Macedonians, Greeks, and Persians working together to rule the territory he
conquered with his army.
Alexander's March to the East
Alexander next led his army farther east42 into territory hardly known to the Greeks. He pared his force to reduce the need
for supplies, which were hard to acquire in the arid country through which they were
marching. Each hoplite in Greek armies customarily had a personal servant to carry his
armor and pack. Alexander, imitating Philip, trained his men to carry their own
equipment, thereby creating a leaner force by cutting the number of army servants
dramatically. As with all ancient armies, however, a large number of noncombatants
trailed after the fighting force: merchants who set up little markets at every stop,
women whom soldiers had taken as mates along the way and their children, entertainers,
and prostitutes. Although supplying these hangers-on was not Alexander's responsibility,
their foraging for themselves made it harder for Alexander's quartermasters to find what
they needed to supply the army proper.
An ancient army's demand for supplies usually left a trail of destruction and famine
for local inhabitants in the wake of its march. Hostile armies simply took whatever they
wanted. Friendly armies expected local people to sell or donate food to its supply
officers and also to the merchants trailing along. These entrepreneurs would set up
markets to resell locally obtained provisions to the soldiers. Since most farmers in
antiquity had practically no surplus to sell, they found this expectation—
which was in reality a requirement— a terrific hardship. The money the farmers
received was of little use to them because there was nothing to buy with it in the
countryside, where their neighbors had also had to participate in the forced marketing
of their subsistence.
Alexander in Afghanistan and India
From the heartland of Persia,
Alexander in 329 B.C. marched northeastward into
the trackless steppes of Bactria43 (modern Afghanistan). When he proved unable to subdue completely the highly
mobile locals, who avoided pitched battles in favor of the guerrilla tactics of attack
and retreat, Alexander settled for an alliance that he sealed by marrying the Bactrian
princess Roxane in 327 B.C. In this same period, Alexander completed the
cold-blooded suppression of both real and imagined resistance to his
plans44 among the aristocrats in his officer corps. As in past years, he used
accusations of treachery or disloyalty as justification for the execution of those
Macedonians he had come to distrust. These executions, like the destruction of Thebes in
335 B.C., demonstrate Alexander's appreciation of terror as a disincentive to
rebellion.
From Bactria
Alexander headed east to India45. He probably intended to push on all the way through to China in search of the
edge of the farthest land on the earth, which Aristotle, whom Philip had once employed
as the young Alexander's tutor, had taught was a sphere. Seventy days of marching
through monsoon rains, however, finally shattered the nerves of Alexander's soldiers. In
the spring of 326 B.C.
they mutinied46 on the banks of the Hyphasis River (the modern Beas) in western India. Alexander
was forced to agree to lead them in the direction of home. When his men had balked
before, Alexander had always been able to shame them back into action by sulking in his
tent like Achilles in the
Iliad. This time the soldiers were beyond
shame.
The Return of Alexander
After the mutiny of his troops in northwestern India and his bitter acquiescence to
their demand to return homeward,
Alexander led his army south down the course of
the Indus River47. Along the way he took out his frustration at being stopped in his eastward
march by slaughtering the Indian tribes who resisted him and by risking his life more
flamboyantly then ever before.
As a climax to his frustrated rage, he flung
himself over the wall of an Indian town to face the enemy alone like a Homeric
hero48. His horrified officers were barely able to rescue him in time; even so, he
received grievous wounds. At the mouth of the Indus on the Indian Ocean,
Alexander
turned a portion of his army west through the fierce desert of Gedrosia49. Another portion took an easier route inland, while a third group sailed
westward along the coast to explore for possible sites for new settlements and harbors.
Alexander himself led the contingent that braved the desert, planning to surpass earlier
Persian kings by marching through territory that they had found impossible. There a
flash flood wiped out most of the noncombatants following the army. Many of the soldiers
also died on the march through the desert, expiring from lack of water and the heat,
which has been recorded at 127 degrees in the shade in that area. Alexander, as always,
shared his men's hardships. In one legendary episode from this horrible ordeal, a few
men were said to have brought him a helmet containing some water they had found.
Alexander spilled the water out onto the sand rather than drink when his men could not.
The remains of the army finally reached safety in the heartland of Persia in 324
B.C.50
Alexander's Last Plans
When he had returned to Persia, Alexander promptly began to formulate plans for an
invasion of the Arabian peninsula and, to follow that, all of North Africa west of
Egypt. By the time of his return to Persia, Alexander had dropped all pretense of ruling
over the Greeks as anything other than an absolute monarch. Despite his earlier promise
to respect the internal freedom of the Greek city-states, he impinged on their autonomy
by sending a peremptory
decree ordering them to restore to citizenship the large
number of exiles from the Greek city-states51, who had been
created over the previous decades of war in Greece and whose status as wandering,
stateless persons was creating unrest. Even more striking was his communication that
he wished to receive the honors due a god52. Initially dumbfounded by this request, the leaders of most Greek states soon
complied by sending honorary delegations to him as if he were a god. The Spartan Damis
pithily expressed the only prudent position on Alexander's deification open to the cowed
Greeks: “If Alexander wishes to be a god, we agree that he be called a
god.” Scholars continue to debate Alexander's motive for desiring the Greeks
to acknowledge him as a god, but few now accept a formerly popular theory that he sought
divinity because he believed the city-states would then have to obey his orders as
originating from a divinity, whose authority would supersede that of all earthly
regimes. Personal rather than political motives best explain his request. He almost
certainly had come to believe that he was the son of Zeus; after all,
Greek
mythology told many stories of Zeus producing children by mating with a human
female.53 Most of those legendary offspring were mortal, but Alexander's conquest showed
that he had surpassed them. His feats must be superhuman, he could well have believed,
because they exceeded the bounds of human possibility. Alexander's accomplishments
demonstrated that he had achieved godlike power and therefore must be a god himself.
Alexander's divinity was, in ancient terms, a natural consequence of his power.
The Aims of Alexander
Alexander's overall aims can best be explained as interlinked goals: the conquest and
administration of the known world and the exploration and possible colonization of new
territory beyond. Conquest through military action was a time-honored pursuit for
Macedonian aristocrats like Alexander. He included
non-Macedonians54 in his administration and army because he needed their expertise, not because he
wished to promote an abstract notion of what has sometimes been called “the
brotherhood of man.” Alexander's explorations benefited numerous scientific
fields from geography to botany because he took along scientifically minded writers to
collect and catalogue the new knowledge that they encountered.
The far-flung new
cities55 that he founded served as loyal outposts to keep the peace in conquered
territory and provide warnings to headquarters in case of local uprisings. They also
created new opportunities for trade in valuable goods such as spices that were not
produced in the Mediterranean region.
The Death of Alexander
Alexander's plans to conquer Arabia and North Africa were extinguished by his
premature death56 from a fever and heavy drinking on June 10, 323 B.C. He had already been
suffering for months from depression brought on by the death of his best friend,
Hephaistion. Close since their boyhoods, Alexander and Hephaistion were probably lovers.
When Hephaistion died in a bout of excessive drinking, Alexander went wild with grief.
The depth of his emotion was evident when he planned to build an elaborate temple to
honor Hephaistion as a god. Meanwhile, Alexander threw himself into preparing for his
Arabian campaign by exploring the marshy lowlands of southern Mesopotamia. Perhaps it
was on one of these trips that he contracted the malaria-like fever that, exacerbated by
a two-day drinking binge, killed him.
Like Pericles, Alexander had made no plans about what should happen if he should die
unexpectedly. His wife Roxane was to give birth to their first child only some months
after Alexander's death. When at Alexander's deathbed his commanders asked him to whom
he bequeathed his kingdom, he replied,
“To the most
powerful.”57
The Effect of Alexander
The Athenian orator Aeschines (c. 397-322 B.C.) well expressed the bewildered reaction
of many people to the events of Alexander's lifetime:
“What strange and
unexpected event has not occurred in our time? The life we have lived is no ordinary
human one, but we were born to be an object of wonder to posterity.”58 Alexander himself certainly attained legendary status in later times. Stories of
fabulous exploits attributed to him became popular folk tales throughout the ancient
world, even reaching distant regions where Alexander had never trod, such as deep into
Africa. The popularity of the legend of Alexander as a symbol of the height of
achievement for a masculine warrior-hero served as one of his most persistent legacies
to later ages. That the worlds of Greece and the Near East had been brought into closer
contact than ever before represented the other long-lasting effect of his astonishing
career.