Alexander the Great E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 901

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Alexander the Great: A New History combines traditional scholarship with contemporary research to offer an innovative treatment of one of history's most famous figures.

• Written by leading experts in the field
• Looks at a wide range of diverse topics including Alexander's religious views, his entourage during his campaign East, his sexuality, the influence of his legacy, and his representations in art and cinema
• Discusses Alexander's influence, from his impact on his contemporaries to his portrayals in recent Hollywood films
• A highly informed and enjoyable resource for students and interested general readers

Leseprobe

Contents

List of Figures

List of Contributors

Chronology

Preface and Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Journal and Serial Abbreviations

Map

Introduction

I

II

1 The Macedonian BackgroundMichael Zahrnt

2 Alexander’s Conquest of AsiaWaldemar Heckel

3 The Diadochi, or Successors to AlexanderPatrick Wheatley

4 A King and His ArmyWaldemar Heckel

5 The Court of Alexander the Great as Social SystemGregor Weber

Concept of the Court and Terminology

Alexander’s Court at the Start of the Persian Campaign

Balance: Factors of the Evolution

6 Alexander and the GreeksElisabetta Poddighe

Alexander’s Accession to Leadership of the Corinthian League

The Lawful Inheritance

The Panhellenic Crusade and Acknowledgment of Hegemony over Greece

From Corinth 337 to Corinth 336: The Letter and the Spirit of the Agreements with Alexander

Alexander and the Greeks of the Corinthian League in the Context of the Persian War

Panhellenism and the Exercise of Hegemony against Theban Resistance

Alexander’s Exercise of Absolute Sovereignty after his Departure for Asia

The Hegemon and the Allies Chios and Lesbos after their Defection from the Accords: The Imposition of Democracies and Readmission to the League

The “New” Peloponnesian Tyrants and Loyalty to the Corinthian Accords

Anti-Macedonian Resistance during Alexander’s Absence

After Gaugamela: Alexander, the League, and “Greek Freedom”

The Exiles’ Decree, Greek Freedom, and the Corinthian League

Athens, Samos, and Greek Freedom

7 Alexander and the GreeksLawrence A. Tritle

Artists and Athletes with Alexander

Soldiers, Bureaucrats, and Alexander

The Problem of Macedonian Friends and Enemies

Conclusions

8 The Empire of Darius III in PerspectivePierre Briant

1 Sources and Problems: The Empire in Short- and Middle-Term Perspective

2 From Bactria to Idumea

3 From Halicarnassus to Sidon, via Xanthus and Tarsus: Two Achaemenid Satraps between Artaxerxes III and Darius III

4 At the Empire’s Center: Indications of Dynastical and Imperial Continuity

5 From Darius to Alexander: Empire(s) in Transition

9 Alexander and the Persian Empire, between “Decline” and “Renovation”Pierre Briant

I

II

III

IV

10 Alexander and his “Terrible Mother”Elizabeth D. Carney

11 Alexander’s Sex LifeDaniel Ogden

Alexander’s Girls

Alexander’s Boys

12 Heroes, Cults, and DivinityBoris Dreyer

Asia Minor and Aegean Islands

The Greek Mainland

13 Alexander’s Image in the Age of the SuccessorsAlexander Meeus

14 Roman Alexanders:Diana Spencer

Introduction: Reception and Knowledge: Making Up Alexander

Being Alexander the Great – A Roman Complex?

Pompey and the Beginning of the End

Caesar and Crassus

Antony and Augustus: From Republic to Empire

Germanicus: The Perfect Prince

Caligula, Nero, and Domitian: Alexander the Degenerate Despot

Trajan and Hadrian: Parthia and Civilization

Authorial (Self-)Fashioning and Making History: Callisthenes and Rome

Alexander and the Sum of All Knowledge

15 The Construction of a New IdealCatie Mihalopoulos

Lysippan Portraits of Alexander the Great

Images of Alexander by Apelles

Varia and Concluding Remarks

16 Power, Passion, and PatronsE. J. Baynham

Bibliography

Index

This edition first published 2009 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom

Editorial Offices350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of Waldemar Heckel and Lawrence A. Tritle to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Alexander the Great : a new history / edited by Waldemar Heckel and Lawrence A. Tritle.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-4051-3081-3 (hardcover : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-1-4051-3082-0 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Alexander, the Great, 356-323 B.C. 2. Greece-History-Macedonian Expansion, 359-323 B.C. 3. Greece-Kings and rulers-Biography. 4. Generals-Greece-Biography. I. Heckel, Waldemar, 1949- II. Tritle, Lawrence A., 1946-DF234.A4857 2009938’.07092-dc22 [B]

2008026394

Figures

1.1Bust of Alexander the Great as a youth2.1Bronze equestrian statue of Alexander the Great, found at Herculaneum2.2The Alexander Mosaic, from the House of the Faun, Pompeii2.3The Alexander Sarcophagus: detail of a helmeted Alexander on horseback2.4The Alexander Sarcophagus: view of the entire sarcophagus2.5The Alexander Sarcophagus: view of the long battle side8.1Coin of Mazaeus/Mazday, struck at Tarsus12.1Shrine of the Bark: dedicatory inscription of Alexander the Great praising the god Amun-Ra14.1Pompey the Great15.1The Getty Alexander15.2Head of Alexander the Great: copy of original by Lysippus15.3Alexander from Pergamum15.4The Pella Alexander, from Gianitsa15.5Alexander the Great, so-called “Alexander Azara”15.6The Stag Hunt, Gnosis15.7Pseudo-athlete from Delos15.8Alexander Helios15.9Neisos Gem16.1Charles Le Brun, The Family of Darius before Alexander (detail)16.2Charles Le Brun, The Triumph of Alexander

Contributors

E. J. Baynham, Professor of Classics and Ancient History, University of Newcastle Pierre Briant, Professor of History, Collége de France, Paris Elizabeth D. Carney, Professor of History, Clemson University, South Carolina Boris Dreyer, Ancient History Seminar, University of Göttingen Waldemar Heckel, Professor of Ancient History, University of Calgary Alexander Meeus, Faculty of Arts, Ancient History, Catholic University of Louvain

Catie Mihalopoulos, Assistant Professor of Art and Archaeology, California State

University, Channel Islands Daniel Ogden, Department of Classics, University of Exeter

Elisabetta Poddighe, Department of Classical Philology and Ancient History,

University of Cagliari Diana Spencer, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham

Lawrence A. Tritle, Professor of History, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles

Gregor Weber, Professor and Chair of Ancient History, University of Augsburg Patrick Wheatley, Lecturer, Department of Classics, University of Otago Michael Zahrnt, Emeritus Professor of Ancient History, University of Cologne

Chronology

All dates are BC unless indicated otherwise.

c.498–454 Reign of Alexander I “Philhellene.”c.454–413 Reign of Perdiccas II.413–399 Reign of Archelaus I.393–369 Reign of Amyntas III.360/59–336 Reign of Philip II.359–338 Reign of Artaxerxes III of Persia.357 Marriage of Philip II to Olympias of Epirus.356 Philip founds Philippi. Victory at Olympic Games.356c. July 20Birth of Alexander.356–346 Third Sacred War.352 Philip acquires control of Thessaly.348 Philip sacks Olynthus.346 Peace of Philocrates. Philip celebrates Pythian Games.344/3 Persia reconquers Egypt (in revolt since 404).343 Aristotle tutors Alexander at Mieza.342–339 Philip gains control of Thrace.340/39 Alexander, as regent during Philip’s absence at siege of Byzantium, defeats the Maedians and founds Alexandroupolis.338AugustPhilip defeats Greek coalition led by Athens and Thebes at Chaeroneia.337springPhilip founds League of Corinth, is chosen leader of Panhellenic expedition against Persian empire.336 Accession of Darius III of Persia. Philip dispatches forces under Parmenion to Asia Minor.336?Oct.Philip assassinated at Aegae.336–323 Reign of Alexander III the Great.336/5 Alexander recognized as Philip’s successor as head of League of Corinth and commander of Persian expedition.335late springAlexander campaigns in Thrace against Triballi and in Danube region. June–Aug.Campaigns against the Illyrian chieftains Cleitus and Glaucias. early Oct.Destruction of Thebes.334springAlexander’s army crosses into Asia. MayBattle of the river Granicus. May–Aug.Campaigns in western Asia Minor; Greek-Macedonian fleet disbanded. Aug.–Sept.Siege of Halicarnassus. autumn–winterCampaigns in Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia.333springAdvance to Great Phrygia (Gordian Knot incident). summerTo Ancyra, through Cilician Gates; to Tarsus and Soli. Nov.Battle of Issus in Cilicia. Dec.Parmenion captures Damascus.332Jan.–July/Aug.Siege of Tyre. Sept.–Nov.Siege of Gaza. Nov.Alexander recognized as pharaoh of Egypt.331Jan.–Mar.Foundation of (Egyptian) Alexandria (official “birthday” April 7).  Consultation of oracle of Ammon at Siwah oasis. springFrom Memphis to Tyre, reorganization of financial administration. July–Aug.To Thapsacus. autumn“Battle of Mice” (Antipater defeats Spartan king, Agis III, at Megalopolis). Sept. 20Evening eclipse of moon. Oct. 1Battle of Gaugamela. Oct.–Dec.Progress through Babylonia and Sittacene (military reorganization) to Persepolis (Uxian campaign and battle at the Persian Gates).330springCampaign in interior of Iran. Apr./MayReturn to Persepolis, burning of palace, and departure for Media. early JuneAllied Greek contingents dismissed at Ecbatana. JuneTo Rhagae (ancient Teheran) and Caspian Gates. JulyCapture of Darius III’s body. Advance to border of Hyrcania. Reception of Nabazarnes and Phrataphernes. Visit of the Amazon queen (alleged). Advance to Zadracarta. Alexander starts acting as Great King; adopts mixed oriental dress. Aug.Toward Bactria, then diversion to Artacoana (Herat). Revolt of Satibarzanes. Sept.Trial and execution of Philotas, followed by murder of Parmenion. Trial of Amyntas and his brothers. winterThrough land of Drangaeans and Ariaspians, into Arachosia; through Paropamisadae to foot of Hindu Kush.330/29winterFoundation of Alexandria-by-the-Caucasus (near Begram and Charikar).329springCrossing of Hindu Kush, to Drapsaca (Kunduz) and Bactra; older men and Thessalian volunteers sent home. Crossing of Oxus river. summerCapture of Bessus (Persian pretender) by Ptolemy; punishment of Bessus. Advance to Maracanda (Samarkand), summer capital of Sogdiana, to river Jaxartes (Syr-darya). Foundation of Alexandria Eschate (Khodjend). Revolt of local Scythian tribesmen and of Sogdians, campaign against defected Spitamenes.329/8winterAt Bactra Alexander receives embassies from Scythians and Chorasmians. Capture of the Rock of Sogdiana (Rock of Arimazes).328springSystematic pacification of Sogdiana begins; guerrilla warfare against Massagetae of Turkestan steppes and against Spitamenes. late summerReturn to Maracanda. Nov.Alexander murders Cleitus at Maracanda. Spitamenes killed by Massagetae.328/7winterAlexander quarters at Nautaca.327springCapture of Rock of Chorienes (Koh-i-Nor). Alexander marries Roxane, daughter of Oxyartes. Return to Bactria; defeat of last opposition. Proskynesis episode; Pages’ Conspiracy; arrest and execution of Callisthenes. late springDeparture from Bactria; recrossing of Hindu Kush to Alexandria by-the-Caucasus. lateInvasion of India begins.327/6winterAlexander among the Assacenians (Swat and Buner); capture of Massaga. Advance to Indus river and Rock of Aornus (Pir-Sar).326 Progress to Taxila MayBattle of the Hydaspes (Jhelum) against Porus (rajah of the Pauravas). May–JuneHalt in Porus’s kingdom. late JuneAdvance to Acesines river and Hyphasis (Beas) river. The army refuses to advance beyond the Hyphasis. Return to the Hydaspes. Death of Coenus. Fleets prepared. Nov.Beginning of descent of Indus river system.325 Reduction of Mallian tribe; near-fatal wounding of Alexander. Journey to the Indian Ocean. JulyPattala (?Hyderabad) reached. Aug.Descent from Pattala begins. Aug.–Nov.Approach to march through Gedrosian desert (Makran). Sept.Alexander reaches Oreitae. Sept./Oct.Nearchus leaves with fleet; Alexander marches through Gedrosia and reaches Pura. mid Dec.Nearchus reaches Hormozeia (Hormuz). late Dec.Alexander and Nearchus reunited in Carmania (?at Gulashird).325/4winterExecutions of satraps and generals; flight of Harpalus.324Jan.–Mar.Nearchus leaves Hormozeia, then enters Arabian Gulf. ?Jan.Alexander reaches Pasargadae. Mar.Alexander and Nearchus reunite at Susa. Apr.Susa weddings. Paying off of soldiers’ debts. Voyage up Tigris. JuneMutiny at Opis (Baghdad). Banquet of reconciliation. JulyHarpalus arrives at Athens, hands over 700 talents. Aug.Promulgation by Nicanor of Alexander’s Exiles’ Decree at Olympic Games. Oct.Death of Hephaestion at Ecbatana.324/3winterCampaign against Cossaean nomads.323earlyAlexander in Babylon. Preparations for Arabian expedition. Visits of Greek envoys acknowledging Alexander’s divinity. June 11Alexander dies at Babylon, aged nearly 33, having reigned just over twelve and a half years323/2 Lamian War in Greece.320 Political settlement at Triparadeisus (northern Syria).319 Death of Antipater. Beginning of the struggle for power between Cassander and Polyperchon.317 Deaths of Philip III and Adea-Eurydice. Eumenes betrayed to Antigonus at Gabiene; his death.316 Death of Alexander’s mother, Olympias.310 Death of Alexander IV at Amphipolis.306 Battle of Salamis. Antigonus and Demetrius assume the royal title; other Successors follow suit.301 Battle of Ipsus. Death of Antigonus the One-Eyed.

Preface and Acknowledgments

One of the strengths of this volume is that it includes contributions by scholars outside the English-speaking world, whose views on the reign of Alexander often do not receive due notice and attention. The Editors are grateful to Al Bertrand and to Blackwell Publishing who realized that such contributions would enhance the volume’s importance and so supported the work of our translators. We would thus like to acknowledge the following contributions: Dr. John Nicholson (Loyola University Chicago Rome Center) who translated Elisabetta Poddighe’s chapter on Alexander and the Greeks; Dr. Reyes Bertolin-Cebrian (University of Calgary) who translated Gregor Weber’s chapter on Alexander’s court; Ms. Sandra Colantonio who translated Pierre Briant’s discussion of the historiography of Alexander and the Persian empire. Their efforts were supported additionally by Anneli Purchase and Wouter Henkleman (P. Briant’s assistant) who were no less important in this work.

The Editors are also grateful to Al Bertrand and Blackwell for their generous decision to illustrate this volume lavishly with some of the more important examples of the art and imagery of the reign of Alexander. Humberto DeLuigi at Art Resource New York located a number of the images illustrated here; his efforts were assisted by Blackwell’s Leanda Shrimpton who found several others and arranged for the Charles Le Brun artwork as well.

Abbreviations

Names of ancient authors and titles of works are abbreviated after H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek–English Lexicon, 9th edn., rev. by Sir H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie (Oxford, 1940), pp. xvi-xxxviii, or as listed in OCD3 (cited below). For standard reference works, the usual abbreviations are followed, e.g., CAH = Cambridge Ancient History, ed. by J. B. Bury et al., 1st edn., 12 vols. (Cambridge, 1923–39; 2nd and 3rd editions in progress).

ADABJ. Naveh and S. Shaked, Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria, Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1.V (London, 2009)AustinM. M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (Cambridge, 1981)BelochK. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, 2nd edn., 4 vols. (Strasbourg, Berlin, Leipzig, 1912–27)BerveH. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prospographischer Grundlage, 2 vols. (Munich, 1926)BHAch IP. Briant, Bulletin d’Histoire Achéménide, vol. i, Topoi suppl. 1 (1997), pp. 5–127BHAch IIP. Briant, Bulletin d’histoire Achéménide, vol. ii (Paris, 2001)CAHCambridge Ancient HistoryCAH2Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edn.CDCCG. Shipley, J. Vanderspoel, D. Mattingly, and L. Foxhall (eds.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Classical Civilization (Cambridge, 200)CIGCorpus Inscriptorium Graecarum (Berlin, 1825–1977)FdXH. Metzger et al., Fouilles de Xanthos, vol. vi : La stèle trilingue du Létôon (Paris, 1973)FGrHF. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, vols. i-ii (Berlin, 1923–6); vol. iii (Leiden, 1940–58)Hammond–GriffithN. G. L. Hammond and G. T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. ii: 555–336 BC (Oxford, 1979)Hammond–WalbankN. G. L. Hammond and F. W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia, vol. iii: 336–167 BC (Oxford, 1988)HeckelW. Heckel, Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great (Oxford, 2006)HPEP. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN, 2002)IGInscriptiones GraecaeIGRInscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (Paris, 1911–27)ISEL. Moretti (ed.), Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche (Florence, 1967–76)OCD3Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn., rev. by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (Oxford, 2003)OGISW. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1903–5)P. KölnKölner Papyri (Opladen, 1976–)P. OxyThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London, 1898–)RCC. Bradford Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (London, 1934)REPauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Realencyclopedaedia der classischenAltertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1894–1980)Rhodes-OsborneP. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne (eds.), Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 BC (Oxford, 2003)RTPP. Briant, Rois, tributs et paysans (Paris, 1982)SEGSupplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden, 1923- )SIG3W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd edn., 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1921–4)TarnW. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1948)TodM. N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1933–48)

Journal and Serial Abbreviations

Titles of periodical literature are generally abbreviated in accordance with those listed in L’Année philologique.

AAAntike und AbendlandAAWWAnzeiger der Österreicheschen Akademie der Wisenschaften in WienABullArt BulletinACL’Antiquité classiqueAchHAchaemenid HistoryAClassActa ClassicaAFLFBAnnali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università degli Studi di BariAFPArchiv für PapyrusforschungAHBThe Ancient History BulletinAHRAmerican Historical ReviewAJAAmerican Journal of ArchaeologyAJAHAmerican Journal of Ancient HistoryAJNAmerican Journal of NumismaticsAJPhAmerican Journal of PhilologyAKAntike KunstAKGArchiv für KulturgeschichteAMAncient MacedoniaAMITArchäologische Mitteilungen aus IranAncSocAncient SocietyAncWAncient WorldAnnales (HSS)Annales: histoire, sciences, socialesANRWAufstieg und Niedergang der römischen WeltAOATAlter Orient und Altes TestamentAOSAmerican Oriental SocietyASNPAnnali della Scuola Normale Superiore di PisaBCHBulletin de correspondance helléniqueBiOrBibliotheca OrientalisBMCRBryn Mawr Classical ReviewBullsoc Arch. Alex.Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d’AlexandrieCAClassical AntiquityC&MClassica et MedievaliaCISAContributi dell’Istituto di Storia AnticaCJClassical JournalCPhClassical PhilologyCQClassical QuarterlyCRClassical ReviewCRAIComptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-LettresDHADialogues d’histoire ancienneEAEpigraphica AnatolicaEVOEgitto e Vicino OrienteG&RGreece and RomeGJGeographical JournalGRBSGreek, Roman and Byzantine StudiesHSCPhHarvard Studies in Classical PhilologyIAIranica AntiquaICSIllinois Classical StudiesIEJIsrael Exploration JournalINJIsrael Numismatic JournalJAOSJournal of the American Oriental SocietyJBerlMusJahrbuch der Berliner MuseenJCSJournal of Cuneiform StudiesJDAIJahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen InstitutsJHSJournal of Hellenic StudiesJNESJournal of Near Eastern StudiesJNFAJournal of Numismatic Fine ArtsJSJournal des SavantsLCMLiverpool Classical MonthlyMAARMemoirs of the American Academy in RomeMDAI(A)Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Athen)MDAI(R)Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Rom)NCNumismatic ChronicleOLPOrientalia Lovaniensia PeriodicaOLZOrientalistische LiteraturzeitungP&PPast and PresentPACAProceedings of the African Classical AssociationPAPhSProceedings of the American Philosophical SocietyPBAProceedings of the British AcademyPEQPalestine Exploration QuarterlyPPLa parola del passatoQSQuaderni di storiaQUCCQuaderni urbinati di cultura classicaRARevue archéologiqueREARevue des études anciennesRFRivista di filosofiaRFICRivista di filologia e di istruzione classicaRhMRheinisches Museum für PhilologieRIDARevue Internationale des Droits de l’AntiquitéRPhRevue de PhilologieSIFCStudi Italiani di filologia classicaSOslSymbolae OsloensesStudClasStudia ClassicaTAPhATransactions of the American Philological AssociationTrans.TranseuphratèneYClSYale Classical StudiesZAZeitschrift für AssyriologieZDPVZeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-VereinsZPEZeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Introduction

When Blackwell’s Al Bertrand first suggested that I edit a volume of new papers on Alexander the Great, it was believed that a “Guide” or “Companion” to the study of the famous conqueror would serve as a useful background for readers attracted to the subject by the appearance of Oliver Stone’s film Alexander. For once, my habitual lethargy proved beneficial; for the anticipated triumph of Stone’s epic never materialized – and I leave it to readers to decide for themselves why this was so. The volume’s title thus mutated into Alexander the Great: A New History, a change that is neither subtle nor unimportant. What, one may ask, is new in this New History? Is it even possible to say anything new? Again, readers will have or at least may form their own opinions, but some observations are worth making at the outset.

First of all, this book offers a collection of views on aspects of the history and life of Alexander, as well as on the kingdom from which he emerged and the empire he conquered, by a wide range of scholars – some providing a synthesis of arguments developed over many years of engagement with the subject (or, on occasion, of “engaging the enemy more closely” – for we are not all admirers of his alleged “greatness”), others presenting fresh new approaches to topics both familiar and less so. Neither the contributors nor the editors would agree in every case (or even whole-heartedly) with the conclusions reached in some or perhaps most of the chapters in this book, but all will recognize that the arguments presented here are based on reasoned interpretations of the (often complex) evidence. And it is precisely this healthy difference of opinion that keeps the study of Alexander fresh and, dare I say, new. The newness and appeal of this volume are, thus, to be found in its diversity and its combination of novel insights with breadth of coverage, of in-depth investigation with an appreciation of universal truths. The individual chapters are not intended primarily as surveys of scholarship, although they often provide this very thing; instead they offer thought-provoking insights into much discussed problems as well as new areas of study. Furthermore, I have in recent months debated with myself whether it is not somewhat disingenuous to claim as “new” contributions which in some cases have been sitting on my desk for over four years, but again the newness resides in the arguments and their presentation rather than in the speed with which they have found their way into print.

This leads me to comment briefly on the evolution of this particular volume. As I mentioned above, the proposal came originally from Al Bertrand to me, but I soon found it desirable to invite – perhaps “beg” would be the more appropriate word – my friend Larry Tritle to join me as co-editor. We commissioned articles by German, French, and Italian scholars, and the need to translate these brought with it concomitant delays in publication. When it came to contributors who wrote in English, some withdrew – reluctantly and with apologies and ample warning – and another simply did not deliver or bother to forewarn the editors or offer an excuse. Hence, a further delay. Nevertheless, the final collection vindicates the adage that “good things come to those who wait,” even when this means waiting for A New History. The volume, in its final form, combines narrative1 with special studies, background and context with specific details, and a survey of older literature with the promise of new approaches. Some contributors have examined new areas without resorting to what might be considered “trendy” or being seduced by the need to be “sexy”; nor is there an excessive use of jargon (though, in one case, I would venture to say that one man’s jargon is another woman’s precision). Others have taken traditional approaches to subjects previously neglected. And, for those with a craving for scholarship so profound that only foreign expressions will suffice to define it, this volume offers Quellenforschung, Wissenschaftsgeschichte, and Nachleben in healthy doses. The book’s range is geographically expansive and it stretches chronologically from the formative years of Persia and Macedon to the annus mirabilis, 2004, which witnessed the tragic non-event of Stone’s Alexander, the inspiration for the countless “new” volumes that sounded to publishers very much like the clinking of “money in the bank,” but proved to be nothing more than the echoing of an empty vault. Indeed, we have arrived too late to jump on the bandwagon. Just as well, for I would rather rock on my own than sink with the Stone.

WH

Works on Alexander the Great, his life and times, his military achievements, are legion – scholarly, popular, military, and most recently cinematographic – and all this points to the ongoing interest in one of the ancient world’s great figures, perhaps the greatest. All of this might prompt the question, What more could be said, can anything be new? The answer to this must be yes, as scholars and authors continually respond to Alexander from the perspective of their own time.

I

In the early modern era, Alexander was a subject of interest to many authors as well as translators. Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince refers to the Macedonian king and conqueror, titling one chapter (4) after him and elsewhere citing his generosity while also referring to his imitation of Achilles just as Caesar would imitate him.2 The earliest translations of Plutarch’s Lives including the Alexander, began in the sixteenth century, first into Latin (e.g., Politan, Melanchthon, on the continent; in England Sir John Cheke and Richard Pace) and then followed not long after by vernacular translations in virtually all the major European languages. Of these those of Jacques Amyot in France and Thomas North in England were perhaps most important as they made available as never before the life of Alexander, whose achievements would inspire others to great deeds.3 At the same time, additional historical accounts, particularly those of Quintus Curtius (1470/1) and Arrian (1535) provided even more information which stimulated further the study of Alexander’s life and achievements.4

The first detailed and modern scholarly treatment of Alexander appeared with the 1833 publication of Gustav Droysen’s study of Alexander.5 Droysen continued revisions to this work through the nineteenth century, and to the present day it is widely regarded that he not only single-handedly revolutionized the study of Alexander, but in doing so created a whole new field of ancient history, the Age of Hellenistic.6 This view is now in need of revision, as Pierre Briant convincingly demonstrates in the pages that follow. A few years later in England, banker and parliamentarian George Grote began to publish A History of Greece in 1846, a work that concluded with an entire volume on Alexander that continues to be cited today.7 Though a pronounced contemporary liberal temper and middle-class ethic characterizes his work, Grote weighs the evidence of the ancient authors carefully and his judgments are generally judicious.

Since Droysen and Grote, their many contemporaries and students, research into Alexander has continued to explore the king’s life and times, going beyond the mere military achievement and finding whole new subjects to consider. In the English-speaking world, scholars including E. Badian, A. B. Bosworth, E. D. Carney, P. Green, N. G. L. Hammond, W. Heckel, and W. W. Tarn have made numerous contributions to this investigation, as have P. Briant and P. Goukowsky (in French), H. Berve, F. Schachermeyr, U. Wilcken, and G. Wirth (in German).8 The present collection of essays offers both a broad survey of the reign and conquests of Alexander, Greeks and Persians, as well as focused studies of his life and impact on those who followed.

II

We begin with the background of ancient Macedonia and Greece, and its world well beyond Alexander’s life and reign. The historical narrative of Michael Zahrnt, Waldemar Heckel, and Patrick Wheatley examines the formation of the Macedonian kingdom under Philip and his immediate predecessors (Zahrnt), the conquests of Alexander (Heckel), and the Hellenistic world of Alexander’s successors, the Diadochi (Wheatley). The story of Alexander’s battles and conquests has certainly been told many times, but Heckel’s narrative is at once familiar yet also refreshing and insightful. Alexander’s death in Babylon led to a tumultuous and violent era that is often so confusing to students that it is dismissed as simply beyond comprehension. Pat Wheatley provides a concise discussion of this immensely difficult subject. He manages at the same time to give an overview of the sources for this period, including recent scholarly work on long neglected sources from the Near East that shed light on the notoriously difficult chronology of the period. New ideas of kingship that formed at this time are also examined.

Alexander could have accomplished nothing without one of the great armies of all time, and Waldemar Heckel, in a second essay, and Gregor Weber offer stimulating treatments of Alexander, his army, and court. Exploring the nature of the army – where its men came from and also the relationship between commander and commanded – Heckel offers an interpretation of Alexander’s leadership and command abilities that readers will find stimulating and provocative. Alexander also inherited a court from his father Philip, and Weber shows how, during the course of his reign and conquest, this court changed along with the king. Persian institutions as well as representation entered the Macedonian court, making it different. The court also became permanent as the source of power of a monarch who is at once Greek and Macedonian as he is also Persian.

Alexander inherited not only his kingdom from his father but also a complex web of connections to the Greeks whom Philip had defeated at Chaeroneia in 338/7.

These relationships are examined by Elisabetta Poddighe and Lawrence Tritle, looking at two very different dimensions of these. As Philip planned his attack on the Persian empire, he established an alliance and league, what we now know as the Corinthian League, to create stability and order in Greece while campaigning. Leadership of this fell to Alexander, inheriting his father’s title as hegemon. Pod-dighe examines the sometimes sensitive dealings between king and League, arguing that Alexander mostly maintained a diplomatically proper relationship with the Greeks. This changed somewhat upon his return to Babylon in 324, especially for Athens which disputed the king’s call for “freedom” in Greece which for Athens meant loss of the island of Samos as its exiled population would now return home. Not all Greeks, however, saw Alexander and the Macedonians as oppressors. Many, thousands even, benefited and profited from Alexander and the Macedonian conquests, and participated in the great adventure into the Persian east, joining Alexander as soldiers and bureaucrats, artists and entertainers, of all kinds. Tritle identifies these, discussing and analyzing their associations with Alexander and his army.

The Persians, of course, suffered defeat and ignominy at Alexander’s hands. Pierre Briant sheds light on this defeat, first looking at the state of affairs in the empire as Alexander invaded, then turns to history of the history of Alexander’s Persian conquest. R. G. Collingwood in his Idea of History (1946) discussed what he called “second order history,” or the history of history, and how present ideas shaped understanding of the past. In a penetrating study, Briant traces the origins of many of the ideas common to Alexander studies, placing them within the context of European intellectual history from before the Enlightenment to the twentieth century.

Conquering an empire is the work of great men, and few compare with Alexander. But what kind of a man was he? Three essays examine Alexander’s family life and his transition from man to virtually godlike stature. Elizabeth Carney and Daniel Ogden look at the man Alexander, but from very different perspectives. Carney investigates Alexander’s relations with his mother Olympias and her formative influences upon him. Slightly different is Ogden’s approach, which examines Alexander’s sexuality, placing it in the wider context of what sex in the ancient world was all about and what it would have meant to Alexander. Whatever one might say of Alexander’s relationship with his mother and with men and women, there is certainty in his heroics on the battlefield and in his conquests. These clearly set him apart from those around him and during his reign and conquests his heroic stature grew by leaps and bounds. Along with this rise in his larger-than-life status, there came to be established in his honor, and to enable his rule over those he conquered, many cults and festivals throughout the lands he touched. Boris Dreyer traces the evolution of the man to demigod status, and the establishment of his cults and festivals, many of which continued to be observed for hundreds of years after his death and those of his successors.

This heroic stature survives into our own time. The impact and tradition of Alexander into later times is the subject of four essays by Alexander Meeus, Diana Spencer, Catie Mihalopoulos, and Elizabeth Baynham, all examining later images of Alexander. Meeus begins with a stimulating reinterpretation of the image of Alexander that was already taking shape in the era of the Successors. This continued, as Spencer shows, with the Romans who were at once appalled and amazed at what Alexander had achieved. Best known perhaps is the famous antagonist of Julius Caesar, Pompey “the Great” who styled himself after Alexander as seen in his portrait and in literature, particularly Plutarch’s Life of Pompey. On a much broader level, Mihalopoulos investigates Alexander’s impact on portraiture and what would become known as Hellenistic art as seen the surviving body of Greek originals and Roman copies. Finally, the Romans were just the beginning of later generations’ fascination with Alexander. Alexander’s accomplishments and person, Baynham shows, influenced the art and court of Louis XIV as seen in the famous paintings of Charles LeBrun which the Sun King commissioned. No less influential is the powerful allure of Alexander in modern film. The interpretation of Alexander screened by Oliver Stone early in the twenty-first century, despite its commercial failure, makes plain not only the ongoing public interest in history and one of its biggest stars, but also the constant presence of the past.9

LAT

1 I would acknowledge, without a twinge of guilt, that my own contribution to the narrative section is the least new, being in fact a very slight reworking (by prearrangement with the publisher) of my contribution to K. Kinzl (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006).

2 Machiavelli 1992: 12, 42, 45. Written in 1513 and published (officially) in 1532, Machiavelli’s source for Alexander was the recently printed text of Q. Curtius (see below n. 3).

3 On the translations and their publication see Russell 1973: 147–52. For detailed commentary to Plutarch’s Alexander see Hamilton 1969. An accessible edition of Plutarch’s Alexander (and related texts) is Scott-Kilvert 1973.

4 Curtius: first edition is that of Spirensis (1470/1), possibly that which Machiavelli read for his references to Alexander in The Prince (see Whitfield in Machiavelli 1992: 198); many editions followed including those of Hedicke 1931 and Rolfe 1946, the latter with English translation. See also the English translation of Yardley and Heckel 1984. Arrian: first edition is that of Trincavalius (1535); many editions followed, including those of Roos and Wirth 1967–80 and Brunt 1976–83 (with English translation). Another readily available English translation of Arrian is de Selincourt 1971.

5 Readers might consult the introductions of Bosworth and Baynham 2000 and Bosworth 2002 which summarize the nature of the evidence for the study of Alexander and provide a historical overview. Cf. Roisman 2003a which offers neither.

6 Droysen 1833, 1877. In this newly created field of Hellenistic civilization, see especially the work of Rostovtzeff 1941 and Green 1990.

7 Grote 1846–56; citation is usually made from the 1888 “new” edn.

8 Readers can find references to the works of these scholars in the bibliography to this book.

9 While Oliver Stone’s film may be deserving of criticism, its depictions of the Macedonian phalanx and cavalry deploying at Gaugamela, the drunken brawl that cost Cleitus the Black his life at Alexander’s hands, are exemplary. This is in contrast to the 1956 film Alexander the Great, starring Richard Burton.

1

The Macedonian Background

Michael Zahrnt

“No Alexander if not for Philip” is true in more than just biological terms. Alexander’s triumphant conquests would not have been possible without Philip’s achievements, namely, the enormous expansion and consolidation of the Macedonian kingdom, with the removal of any danger posed by the Greek states or neighboring barbarians, and the development of an army ready to strike and a capable and loyal officer corps.1 But Philip did not create Macedonia from nothing, despite what ancient authors and modern scholars suggest: he inherited a kingdom which while it had experienced many ups and downs over three centuries had always survived and – given stable internal affairs and favorable external circumstances – represented a power that was recognized and at times even courted by others.2

It all started from small beginnings around the middle of the seventh century, south of that part of the Thermaic Gulf which in those days extended far west inland.3 There, on both sides of the Haliacmon, lay a region called Makedonis and within it – on the northern slopes of the Pierian mountains – the original Macedonian capital Aegae. It was from here that the Macedonians conquered Pieria, the coastal plain east of the Pierian mountains and the Olympus, as well as Bottiaea, the region extending west and north of the Thermaic Gulf up to the Axius, with the future capital Pella. Next they crossed the Axius and occupied the plain between this river and present-day Thessaloniki. Thus they established control over the whole area around the Gulf and finally, just before the end of the sixth century, they also took over the regions of Eordaea and Almopia which bordered the central plain on the western and northwestern sides. The capture of Eordaea, beyond the mountain ridge sealing off the plain to the west, allowed the Macedonian kings to reach further into upper Macedonia, where the regions of Lyncus, Orestis, and Elimeia lay, enclosed by mountains and with their own rulers, whose adherence to the Macedonian kingdom was dependent on the strength of its central rule at any one time. It is impossible now to ascertain when the Macedonian kings first approached these mountain areas, while the further expansion toward the east falls into the period after the failure of Xerxes’ campaign.

Figure 1.1 Bust of Alexander the Great, c.340–330 BC (copy?), as a youth. Acropolis Museum, Athens. Photo: Scala/Art Resource, New York.

The early days of Macedonian history are obscure. The first certain reports relate to the time of Persian rule on European soil: around 510 the Persian general Megabazus conquered the area along the northern coast of the Aegean and accepted the surrender of the Macedonian king Amyntas I. During the Ionian Revolt the Macedonians too shook off Persian sovereignty, which was restored as early as 492. Amyntas’ son Alexander I therefore participated in Xerxes’ campaign as a subject of the Great King.4 Immediately after the Persian defeat at Plataea, Alexander defected and took possession of the regions of Anthemus, Mygdonia, Crestonia, and Bisaltia which lay between the Axius and Strymon. However, in the final years of his reign he sustained losses on the western banks of the Strymon. His successor, Perdiccas II, who ruled until 413, was not only unable to reverse the losses in the east but also had to contend with the endeavors of the rulers of upper Macedonia to establish independence. Moreover, in his time Macedonia was impeded by the Athenian naval empire and drawn into the conflicts of the Peloponnesian War. But Perdiccas was able to maneuver a way through the warring factions fairly successfully and thus for the most part to maintain the independence of his kingdom.

His son Archelaus was destined for a happier rule, since Athenian pressure had eased after the Sicilian disaster. Relations with the Athenians were virtually reversed as they relied on Macedonian timber for shipbuilding. Archelaus’ real contributions lay in domestic politics, his cultural efforts and military reforms. Not only did he accelerate the extension of the road network, but he also initiated the development of a heavily armed infantry which, as shown by the events of the Peloponnesian War, was yet lacking in Macedonia. In the final years of his rule Archelaus was able even to intervene in Thessaly in favor of the imperiled noble family of the Aleuadae, to gain territory and secure his influence in Larisa.5 The right conditions for further extending Macedonian control were therefore in place when Archelaus was murdered in 399.

“Macedonian kings tended to die with their boots on”6 – and indeed the years from 399 to 359 were marked by turmoil and disputed successions during which the position that Macedonia had gained under Archelaus could not be retained. It was only in the latter half of these forty years that Macedonia was once more strengthened internally and enjoyed a degree of external authority, and we shall see when and why this became possible.

However, before that period, the Macedonians saw no fewer than four rulers within the six years, of whom we know little except that most of them came to a violent end and that the kingdom lost territories under them, at least in the east. We can picture Macedonia’s troubles more clearly in the first years of the rule of Amyntas III, who ascended the throne in 393.7 Soon after, Amyntas came under threat from the Illyrians and entered into a defensive alliance with the Chalcidian League which had become an important power on the north coast of the Aegean; he paid for this by ceding the Anthemus, the fertile valley southeast of present-day Thessaloniki. This alliance, however, did not save him from being temporarily expelled from his country. Only in the second half of the 380s was Amyntas secure enough to reclaim from the Chalcidians the land that he had ceded. Not only did they refuse to return it, but they for their part intervened in Macedonian affairs and forced Amyntas to turn to the Spartans who sent an army north in 382. The Olynthian War which began thus was, according to Xenophon’s report, fought mainly by the Spartans and their allies. The Macedonians did not contribute any military force worth mentioning, although Derdas, ruler of the Elimeia, and his cavalry provided useful support. Derdas and his territory are portrayed as being independent of the Macedonian king, and the other upper Macedonian kingdoms appear to have broken away at that time. In 379 the Chalcidian League was dissolved. Amyntas regained the Anthemus, but, according to Xenophon, the Spartans did little otherwise to strengthen the rule of the Macedonian king.8

Isocrates, a slightly older contemporary of Xenophon, however, took quite a different view. In his Panegyricus, published in 380, he castigates Spartan politics of the time with harsh words, introducing as one example among others that the Spartans had helped to extend the rule of the Macedonian king Amyntas, the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius, and the Great King (126). If Isocrates wished to remain credible in his condemnation of Spartan politics, he could not have included a completely insignificant Macedonian king in his trio of those then in power on the boundaries of the world of the Greek poleis. Therefore in 380 Amyntas must have been a political power not to be despised, even if in previous years he had suffered domestic and external problems. Isocrates also had something to say about this when he published his Archidamus in the 360s. Here Amyntas serves as a perfect example of what can be achieved by sheer determination: after he had been vanquished by his barbarian neighbors and robbed of all Macedonia, he regained his whole realm within three months and ruled without interruption into ripe old age (46). Isocrates could make such an assertion only if Amyntas was recognized as a ruler to be reckoned with even after his death.

In the context of a trial in 343, the Athenian Aeschines similarly identifies Amyntas as a political figure of some significance, when he records that Amyntas had been represented by a delegate at a Panhellenic congress (of which there were three between 375 and 371) but had full power over that delegate’s vote (2.32). According to this, Amyntas III was regarded as a full member of the community of Greek states at least toward the end of the 370s. The Athenians had already regarded him as such a little earlier in the 370s when they entered into an alliance with him (SIG3 157; Tod 129), the details of which unfortunately are not known, but which was probably connected to the expansion of Athenian naval power at the time. We know that in the year 375 the ship timber required came from Macedonia (Xen. Hell. 6.1.11). Macedonian ship timber was clearly once more in demand, and therefore the initiative to reach an agreement is likely to have come from the Athenians. In any case this agreement provides additional evidence that Macedonia had again joined the circle of states able to pursue their own policies.

Amyntas’ son Philip II is unwittingly responsible for the negative picture which both later sources and modern scholars have painted of him. In fact, Philip not only eclipsed the achievements of his predecessors, but also induced contemporary writers such as Theopompus, and later universal historians like Diodorus and modern historians, to portray him as almost the god-sent savior of a Macedonia sunk into chaos. Amyntas, with his stamina and energy, had already slowly overcome the disorder following Archelaus’ murder, although he also benefited from the shifts in power around Macedonia, and he left his sons a fairly well-secured kingdom when he died in 370/69.

The general state of affairs remained essentially favorable to the further rise of Macedonian power for his successors. But inner stability and continuity in the succession were needed as well as favorable external conditions. That it had taken Amyntas more than ten years to rebuild the kingdom, and that previously six years of disputes over the succession had been sufficient to bring Macedonia to the brink of disaster, show how quickly what had been achieved could be jeopardized. However, at this point a period of internal turmoil and struggle for the throne, as well of major external interference, soon commenced once more.

The succession of 370/69 went smoothly: Alexander II, the eldest son from Amyntas’ marriage to Eurydice, came to the throne, which in itself shows that Amyntas had again established order. The Illyrians, however, were of a different mind and invaded Macedonia. Pausanias, a relation of the ruling house who lived in exile, used the resulting absence of the young king to invade the country from the east. In this predicament the king’s mother Eurydice turned to the Athenian general Iphicrates who had been dispatched to win back Amphipolis and asked him for help. Iphicrates, gladly taking the opportunity to place the Macedonian king under an obligation, succeeded in expelling Pausanias.9

With this Alexander’s rule was secured, particularly since he had managed to ward off the Illyrian threat. The young king also began to assume the external status his father had achieved in his last year of rule, for the Thessalian Aleuadae called on his support against the tyrant Alexander of Pherae. The Macedonian king appeared with his army in Larisa, was allowed to enter the town, and took the castle after a short siege. Crannon likewise fell into his hands shortly afterward. But instead of handing over the towns to the Thessalian nobility, he kept them himself and installed garrisons in them. This turn of events was not what the Thessalian nobles had expected; they therefore turned to the Thebans who sent Pelopidas to their aid. Pelopidas marched north with an army and liberated Crannon and Larisa from Macedonian rule.

In the mean time Alexander II had been forced to return to Macedonia, for his brother-in-law Ptolemaeus had risen against him. Both parties turned to Pelopidas and called on him to be the arbiter. In order to insure that his arrangements would last and to retain a bargaining tool against the Macedonian king, Pelopidas received Alexander’s youngest brother Philip and thirty sons from the leading families as hostages. Thus the position of power gained under Amyntas III and inherited by Alexander II was quickly lost again and the country once more came under the influence of the then predominant power in Greece, but this was also due to their own mistakes. The state of affairs was to continue for some time. As soon as Pelopidas departed after settling the internal dispute, Alexander II was killed in the winter of 369/8.

As one of the closest male relatives, Ptolemaeus became guardian of Perdiccas, Alexander’s younger brother, and assumed the reins of government. The friends of the murdered ruler, however, regarded him as a usurper and in the summer of 368 turned to Pelopidas, who once more entered Macedonia. Ptolemaeus was forced to declare himself ready to come to an arrangement and to undertake to safeguard the rule for Alexander’s brothers, Perdiccas and Philip. Moreover, he had to agree to an alliance with Thebes and surrender his son and fifty nobles as hostages to guarantee his loyalty. Once more Macedonia was at the mercy of external forces, and again as a result of internal turmoil.

In 365 Perdiccas III succeeded in ridding himself of his guardian Ptolemaeus. Soon after assuming his rule, he decided to make common cause with the Athenians, to work with their commander Timotheus who was operating off the Macedonian coastline, and to take joint action with him against the Chalcidians and Amphipolis. Timotheus gained Potidaea and Torone on the Chalcidian peninsula, but was unable to achieve anything against Amphipolis. Soon afterward, the Athenians sent a cleruchy to Potidaea in order to secure his new acquisition, which occupied a strategic position.

Working with Timotheus is likely to have opened the Macedonian king’s eyes to the Athenians’ political ambitions for power and their by this time very limited capabilities, and to have strengthened his self-confidence, for he soon defected from them and secured Amphipolis through a garrison. Thus Perdiccas ended up on hostile terms with both the Athenians and the Chalcidians, who were themselves also at war with each other, and Athens’ power continued to wane. Overall Macedonia was again on the rise, after the rightful ruler had assumed the throne in Perdiccas and overcome initial problems. He was now able to begin to consolidate the kingdom and to secure it externally. As part of this, he also appears to have reasserted control over the upper Macedonian kingdoms. He also resolved to stop the Illyrians, who had plagued Macedonia since the times of Amyntas III, but was at last defeated in a great battle and fell with 4,000 of his men.

In this situation Perdiccas’ brother Philip proceeded with determination, military ability, and diplomatic skill, first to stabilize Macedonia, and then to pursue a course of expansion by making the most of each opportunity as it presented itself.10He was able to eliminate the pretenders to the throne who almost always quickly appeared in Macedonia in such circumstances; his next step was to secure the borders of the kingdom and their immediate approaches. In this he benefited from the situation in Greece: the Spartans, who acted as if they had been the masters of Greece for some time and had even intervened in the years 382–379 in favor of the then Macedonian king, had been eliminated as a leading power since their defeat at Leuctra (371) and limited to the Peloponnese in their political ambitions. From 357 to 355 the Athenians were entangled in conflicts with some of their allies, and the Second Athenian Confederacy was falling apart. The Thebans’ power likewise was crumbling: where ten years earlier they had still exerted crucial influence as far as Macedonia and even on the Peloponnese, now even their attempt at chastising the insubordinate Phocians failed. Instead, these occupied the sanctuary of Delphi in the early summer of 356 and proceeded to form a large army of mercenaries with the help of its treasures and to hold their own against the other members of the Amphictyony. Finally, the situation in Thrace was also advantageous for Philip after its king Cotys, who had succeeded in reuniting the kingdom, was murdered in the summer of 360 and Thrace was broken up into three parts in the subsequent battle for the succession. Thus the 350s saw convincing successes by Philip on all borders of his kingdom.

The borders to the west and north caused the fewest problems: Philip had already marched against the Illyrians in the early summer of 358, forcing them to cede substantial territories up to Lake Ochrid. When two years later the Illyrian king allied himself with the Paeonians, Thracians, and Athenians against Philip, it was sufficient for Philip to send the experienced general Parmenion against him. After that the region was quiet for more than ten years, especially after another safeguard had been put in place toward the end of the 350s when Philip installed his brother- in-law Alexander as ruler in Epirus, turned the country into something resembling a satellite kingdom, and annexed the region of Parauaea, located between Epirus and Macedonia.11 The Paeonians, who had settled midway on either side of the Axius, were neighbors who had hoped to gain at the expense of Macedon following the defeat of Perdiccas III. At the beginning Philip induced them to maintain peace by making both payments and promises but soon after he attacked, defeated, and brought them into line. In 356 the king of the Paeonians joined the coalition (see above), and shortly afterward his country was finally subjugated.

Philip began to turn east and to round off the area under his rule along the Macedonian coastline in 357. First, he captured Amphipolis, with its deposits of precious metals and timber, which controlled both the crossing over the Strymon and access to the interior of the country, and secured his new acquisition with a garrison; soon after he attacked Pydna on the Macedonian coast. The Athenians who at that time held Pydna and laid claim to Amphipolis declared war against him, but Philip responded to this by approaching the Chalcidian League, promising to acquire for them the Athenian cleruchy of Potidaea.12 This was meant to happen in 356, but while still laying siege to the town Philip received a request for help from the Greek colony of Crenides, which lay in the hinterland of Neapolis (present-day Kavala), and which saw itself threatened by a Thracian king. Philip placed a garrison in the town which he refounded under the name of Philippi. By this he gained not only another foothold in the east, but also the opportunity to exploit the Pangaeum’s rich deposits of precious metal.13 The Thracian king in whose territory Philippi lay naturally joined the coalition, with the result that by the end of the year he was a vassal of Philip and the latter had extended his rule up to the Nestus. In the autumn of 355 Philip attacked Methone, Athens’ last remaining foothold on his shores, and succeeded in forcing it to surrender after a prolonged siege. This represented not only a material but also a public relations victory, for the Athenians had not offered the town any help even though they had the means after the Social War came to an end. As a result, Philip thought a second attempt worth his while: in the spring of 353 he was active east of the Nestus, presumably in order to harm the Greek towns along the coast that were allied to Athens and to make an impression on the Thracian king who ruled this region. The outcome of this test, which was of limited duration, appears to have satisfied Philip: in the autumn of 352 he returned to Thrace and marched rapidly in stages across the Hebrus against Cersebleptes, who ruled the most easterly of the three Thracian kingdoms, and forced him to subordinate himself as vassal. We do not know to what extent this expedition was also aimed at the Athenian territories on the Thracian Chersonese, for Philip fell ill and had to curtail the campaign.

These activities served for the most part to safeguard and expand the Macedonian kingdom and were directed against Athens only among the Greek states. However, what secured a decisive influence over central Greece for Philip occurred between the two campaigns into middle and eastern Thrace. The energetic kings among his predecessors had always pursued three aims: to subjugate the rulers of upper Macedonia; to reach the mouth of the Strymon in order to secure the Bisaltia, which was rich in precious metals, and to alleviate the possibility of Athenian pressure on the coasts of their kingdom; and to extend their influence into Thessaly. Philip achieved the first two goals relatively quickly, and even surpassed his predecessors by not only placing the upper Macedonian territories under his rule, but also pushing the western border of Macedonia up to Lake Ochrid, and by reaching not only the Strymon in the east but as far as the Nestus, and bringing the precious metal deposits of the Pangaeum and of the Bisaltia under his control. He also gave his attention to the third objective and brought his influence to bear in Thessaly.14In this he was able to exploit the tensions between the Aleuadae in Larisa and the Thessalian League on the one hand and the tyrants of Pherae on the other: a first intervention took place as early as 358 and secured the position of his newly won friends among the Thessalian nobility. Philip intervened a second time in 355 in favor of the Thessalian League and thereby made it possible for it to commence a Sacred War jointly with the Thebans against the Phocians, who by now had been in Delphi for over a year without punishment. It appears that Philip had clearly understood that getting involved in central Greece might open up an opportunity for him to gain influence by intervening personally, an influence which could then perhaps also be brought to bear against the Athenians.15