Before and After Alexander

by Richard A. Billows

  Argyropoulos and Chalkokondyles are only two examples of a much wider phenomenon. Dozens of Byzantine Greek scholars visited Italy or moved entirely to western Europe during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but especially in the fifteenth century when the Byzantine Empire collapsed entirely. The list is too long to offer here, but it includes such notable figures as Maximus Planudes, who introduced the Greek Anthology collection of short verse to western Europe; George of Trebizond, famed for his work on Greek rhetorical principles; and George Hermonymos, who taught in Paris, and among whose pupils were influential intellectuals such as Erasmus and Johann Reuchlin. Among the greatest was the aforementioned cardinal Bessarion, who was not only an influential writer on Greek philosophy and defender of Plato, but a great patron and protector of the numerous Greek scholars who fled to Italy, a collector and preserver of manuscripts (his personal library was the foundation of the great library of St Mark’s in Venice), and was even a candidate to become pope at one time despite his Greek origin. The term “Renaissance” to refer to fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Europe has been overused and come under criticism in recent times, but it cannot be denied that the fifteenth-century influx of Greek scholars, writers, and teachers and the Greek literary texts they brought with them had a profound influence on western European culture.

  4. CONCLUSION

  It is clear that Hellenistic civilization did not just die out at the end of antiquity. Its high literary, philosophical, and scientific culture and ideas lived on in the successor civilizations of Islam and Christianity, influencing them until the present day. We have moved a long way in this chapter from that self-confident young man in fourth-century BCE Macedonia who looked disaster in the face in 360 and decided that he would not allow his family and people to pass away, who decided instead that he would build a new and better Macedonia that could dominate the world as he knew it. Philip of course had no inkling, as he built his army and state up from the ruins of defeat, that the effects of his actions would still be felt two millennia later. But if not for Philip’s new Macedonia, if not for his unification of Greece, if not for his bold plan to invade and conquer the Persian Empire and spread Greeks, the Greek language, and Greek culture all around the eastern Mediterranean, it is very debatable whether Greek literature and ideas would or could hold the place in western and even Islamic culture that they do. For millennia it has been the custom, if one recognized this phenomenon at all, to give the credit to the romantic young conqueror Alexander. I think the analysis offered in the chapters above shows clearly that Alexander is one of the most overrated figures in world history. The truly great man was Alexander’s father Philip; and credit belongs too to the generals—Antigonus, Ptolemy, Seleucus—who took on the role of governing the lands Alexander had merely marched through and fought battles in, and of turning those lands into viable empires with Greek cities and Greek culture. Without their efforts, the history and civilization of the lands and cultures of western Asia, Europe, and north Africa would be very different than they are today.

  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  WHEN WRITING ABOUT ANCIENT MACEDONIA TODAY, ONE STANDS—inevitably—on the shoulders of giants, and it is appropriate here to acknowledge the profound influence on my understanding of ancient Macedonia of two great historians above all else, whose many ground breaking articles and game changing books have established how one should view and think about the ancient Macedonians: I mean Eugene Borza and Miltiades Hatzopoulos, with both of whom I have been privileged to have many personal conversations, and whose work (despite various disagreements) has had a profound influence on my views. I also have to thank, as always, Erich Gruen, under whose tutelage at UC Berkeley I first developed an interest in and understanding of Hellenistic history.

  My editors at The Overlook Press, Adam O’Brien and Tracy Carns, deserve great thanks for their patient efforts to speed this work along to its finished form; and I thank Peter Mayer profoundly for his belief in this project. Finally, my wife Clare and daughters Madeline and Colette deserve thanks for putting up with my frequent distraction over the years I have been working on this book.

  END NOTES

  SOURCES AND FURTHER READING (IN ENGLISH)

  CHAPTER 1

  The archaeological evidence for early Macedonia (before 400 BCE) is well summarized, through the 1960s, in Hammond A History of Macedonia vol. I (1972); for subsequent archaeological evidence through the 1980s see Borza In the Shadow of Olympus (1990); and for more recent archaeological explorations see Arthur Muller “The Archaeology of Macedonia” in Giannakis (ed.) Ancient Macedonia: Language, History, Culture (2012). For Badian’s argument against Macedonian as a Greek dialect see his “Greeks and Macedonians” in Barr-Sharrar and Borza (eds) Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Hellenistic Times (1982) pp. 33–51; but see now the studies by Emilio Crespo and Julian Dosuna in Giannakis (ed.) Ancient Macedonia: Language, History, Culture (2012) laying out the evidence for Macedonian as a dialect of Greek. The onomastic studies by Tataki (1988, 1994, 1998) and the epigraphic work of Hatzopoulos (see bibliography below) are of great significance in this regard.

  For the early history of Macedonia the evidence comes almost entirely from the passages of Herodotus and Thucydides cited in the text. For modern accounts see, besides the works of Hammond and Borza cited above, Errington A History of Macedonia (1986), Hatzopoulos Macedonian Institutions under the Kings (2 vols. 1996) esp. vol. 1, and most recently Michael Zahrnt “A History of Macedonia in the Pre-Hellenistic Era” in Giannakis (ed.) Ancient Macedonia: Language, History, Culture (2012).

  The idea of a Macedonian “constitution” was argued for most explicitly by F. Granier (1931); but see the devastating critiques of Errington (1978) and (1983). Though Hatzopoulos (1996) still tried to uphold it in a limited form, it is no longer accepted by most historians of Macedonia for the reasons outlined in the text. For the importance of drinking and the symposium in Macedonian elite culture, see Borza (1983); and for the southern Greek view of Macedonian symposia see Pownall in Carney and Ogden (eds.) (2010) ch. 6. See also Sawada “Social Customs and Institutions: Aspects of Macedonian Elite Society” in Roisman and Worthington (eds.) (2010) ch. 19. On hunting in ancient Greek (including Macedonian) culture see Anderson Hunting in the Ancient World (1985).

  The classic exploration of the resources of Macedonia is Borza (1982) and see also Borza (1987) on the importance of Macedonian timber.

  CHAPTER 2

  An excellent account of the reigns of Amyntas III and his sons Alexander II and Perdiccas III can be found in Borza (1990) ch. 8. The evidence comes primarily from Diodorus the Sicilian bks. 14–15 and Xenophon Hellenica as cited in the text.

  For the practise of polygamy by the Maceodinan rulers see Greenwalt (1989) and Carney (1992).

  For the treaty between Amyntas III and Olynthus see Rhodes and Osborne Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 BC (2003) no. 12. For Sparta’s war with the Olynthian League, see for example ch. 7 of Cartledge The Spartans (2002).

  On the education of the upper class in early Macedonia see for example Billows (1990) ch. 1, especially on the matter of syntrophoi and the relationship between Philip and Antigonus as co-evals.

  On hoplite warfare in classical Greece see Hanson (1989), and Kagan and Vigginao (eds.) Men of Bronze (2013). On Sparta’s defeat at Leuctra and its aftermath see Cartledge (2002) ch. 8; and on the Theban hegemony in Greece see Buckler (1980).

  CHAPTER 3

  Our main sources for the reign of Philip are Diodorus the Sicilian bk. 16, the only full historical narrative; and the speeches of the Athenian orators Aeschines and Demosthenes, especially the latter’s Olynthiac orations, his Philippics, and his speeches “on the Crown,” “on the False Embassy,” and “on the Peace.”

  There are a number of full-length modern studies of Philip: Ellis (1976) and Griffith (1979) are foundational; they established the basic chronology and development of Philip’s career, and like all subsequent treatments of Philip t
he present narrative owes much to them. More recent studies of Philip are Worthington (2008) and (2014), and Gabriel (2010); see also Graham’s assessment of “The Historical Significance of Philip of Macedon” in Danien (ed.) (1990); and in general Hatzopoulos and Loukopoulos (eds.) (1980) and Carney and Ogden (eds.) (2010).

  On Macedonia and the Illyrians, see Greenwalt “Macedonia, Illyria, and Epirus” in Roisman and Worthington (eds.) (2010) ch. 14. On Thrace see Valeva, Nankov and Graninger (eds.) A Companion to Ancient Thrace (2015) esp. chs. 4 and 5 on Thrace in the fourth century BCE. On Thessaly see Graninger “Macedonia and Thessaly” in Roisman and Worthington (eds.) (2010) ch. 15. On the importance and role of the Delphic Oracle in Greece the study of Fontenrose The Delphic Oracle (1978) is key, and see also Buckler Philip II and the Third Sacred War (1989). An excellent study of Philip in relation to the southern Greek world particularly is Cawkwell (1978); in particular Cawkwell’s reconstruction of the Battle of Chaironea at pp. 139–48 is crucial.

  CHAPTER 4

  Besides the standard works on Philip cited in the notes to Chapter 3 above, for Philip’s military activity and army see the study by Griffith “Philip as a General and the Macedonian Army” in Hatzopoulos and Loukopoulos (eds.) (1980) 58–77; also Sekunda “The Macedonian Army” in Roisman and Worthington (eds.) (2010) ch. 22.

  Bosworth “The Argeads and the Phalanx” in Carney and Ogden (eds.) (2010) ch. 9 still defends the view that the Anaximenes fragment quoted in the text refers to Alexander II as establisher of the Macedonian phalanx without really succeeding in dispelling the criticisms of Griffith (1979) 706–9, and see also Borza (1990) 125–26 and 204–6. Borza rightly cites Griffith’s discussion in History of Macedonia 2 (1979) at 405–49 as the best modern treatment of Philip’s military reforms.

  For the sarissa and related Macedonian military equipment and tactics two studies by Markle remain foundational: “The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor” (1977) and “Use of the Sarissa by Philip and Alexander of Macedon” (1979); also Hammond (1980). See also on the Macedonian shield Markle (1999) and Liampi (1988). On Macedonian cavalry see the studies by Hammond (1978) and Milns (1981) in addition to Sekunda cited above. The transition of Philip’s pezetairoi into hypaspistai and eventually argyraspides was fully laid out by Anson (1981), see also Milns (1971). For the experience of US combat historians revealing that most soldiers remained passive in battle, see S. L. A. Marshall’s classic study Men Against Fire (1947), and also Keegan The Face of Battle (1976) at 71–73. For the development of siege warfare and artillery in the ancient world, the study of Marsden (1969) is still important; see also Campbell (2003) and Ashley (2004) ch. 2 “Siege Operations.”

  On Philip’s officer corps Heckel’s study The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire (1992) is a good survey, since Alexander’s marshals were all trained as officers in the army of Philip.

  CHAPTER 5

  Numerous contemporaries of Alexander “the Great” wrote accounts of his life and activities, all now lost. The indispensable work reviewing these writers and their (mostly scanty) remaining fragments is Pearson Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (1960). Four major surviving texts offer more or less full accounts of Alexander; in chronological order they are: Diodoros the Sicilian bk. 17 (ca. 30 BCE), Quintus Curtius Historiae Alexandri Magni Macedonis (ca. 55 CE), Plutarch Life of Alexander (ca. 100 CE), and Arrian Anabasis (ca. 160 CE). The last named, though the latest to write, is generally regarded as the best and most reliable of these historians; he should be read together with Bosworth’s excellent historical commentary published in 1980 (vol. 1) and 1995 (vol. 2). Also valuable is The Landmark Arrian ed. James Romm (2010). On the “Alexander Romance” often cited as Pseudo-Callisthenes, see Stoneman The Greek Alexander Romance (1991).

  W. W. Tarn’s two-volume Alexander the Great (1948) was for many years the most influential English language study; its overly adulatory view of Alexander was, however, debunked in a series of very important studies by Ernst Badian in the 1970s and 1980s, now conveniently available in one volume: Collected Papers on Alexander the Great (2012), which are indispensable for the view of Alexander offered here. Modern studies of Alexander are far too numerous to list here; among the most important (in my view) are Lane Fox Alexander the Great (1973), Bosworth Conquest and Empire (1988), and Heckel The Conquests of Alexander the Great (2008).

  On Philip’s death see chs. 7 and 27 in Badian’s Collected Papers. On the at times fraught relationship between Philip and Alexander, see e.g. Carney and Ogden (eds.) (2010) ch. 2 by Victor Troncoso, and ch. 3 by Sabine Mueller; and on the Pixodarus affair see also ch. 1 by Stephen Ruzicka.

  On the geography of the Battle of the Granicus I follow the study by Nikolitsis (1974). On Antigonus the One-Eyed’s defeat of the Persian counterattack in Asia Minor see Billows (1990) 43–45. On Antipater’s war against the Spartans under Agis III, see Badian Collected Papers chs. 11 and 20. On the deaths of Philotas and Parmenio, and other supposed conspiracies against Alexander, see Badian Collected Papers chs. 3 and 24; and on the Harpalus affair Badian Collected Papers ch. 5. On Alexander’s battle at the Hydaspes River in India against Porus, see Possehl “Alexander in India: the Last Great Battle” in Danien (ed.) (1990). On Alexander and the so-called “unity of mankind” see the devastating critique in Badian Collected Papers ch. 1; and on Alexander’s “reign of terror” towards the end of his life Badian Collected Papers ch. 6.

  CHAPTER 6

  The most important source for the era of Alexander’s Successors is Diodorus the Sicilian bks. 18 to 20, who seems to have made extensive use of the relatively excellent contemporary historian Hieronymus of Cardia, see Hornblower (1981). Other valuable ancient sources are Plutarch’s biographies of Eumenes of Cardia and Demetrius the Besieger; and for the first few years after Alexander’s death the remains of Arrian’s mostly lost work Ta meta Alexandron (“Events after Alexander”) are useful.

  There are now a number of good studies of the era of the Successors: Waterfield (2011), Romm (2011), Roisman (2012). In addition there are numerous studies of individual Successors: on Antigonus the One-Eyed see Billows (1990) and Champion (2014); on Eumenes of Cardia see Anson (2004); on Ptolemy I see Ellis (1993); on Lysimachus see Lund (1992); on Seluecus Nicator see Grainger (1990); on Cassander see Adams (1975); on Demetrius the Besieger see Martin (2013); and on Antigonus Gonatas see Gabbert (1997).

  For the crucial matter of colonisation and city foundation in the Hellenistic era the most complete and up to date resources are the three volumes by Getzel Cohen: The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (1995), The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa (2006), and The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India (2013). See also Billows (1990) 292–304 for colonisation by Antigonus the One-Eyed, and Grainger (1990) for city foundation by Seleucus Nicator.

  CHAPTER 7

  Our historical sources for the Hellenistic era are very fractured, with only Polybius’ history surviving in any substantial part. We rely on inscriptions, papyri, and other literary remains to flesh out our picture of Hellenistic society and civilization: a good resource is Austin’s sourcebook in translation The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (1981). There are several good surveys of Hellenistic history: Walbank (1993), Green (1990), and Errington (2008), for example.

  A good resource on the reign of Ptolemy III of Egypt is now Clayman (2014); on Philip V see Walbank (1940); on Antiochus III see Ma (1999), Taylor (2013), and Grainger (2015). On Hellenistic kingship more generally see Bilde (ed.) Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship (1996).

  On Hellenistic armies generally see Baker “Warfare” in Erskine (ed.) (2003), and especially Chaniotis (2005). On the army of the Ptolemies see Fischer-Bovet (2014); on the Seleucid army see Bar Kochva (1976) and Taylor (2013); on the Antigonid army see Hatzopoulos (1996) and Sekunda (2013).

  For Hellenistic cities see Billows “Cities” i
n Erskine (ed.) (2003) ch. 12.

  For the great library of Alexandria, see Canfora (1989). On Hellenistic scholarship, Dickey (2007) collects all the known data. On Callimachus see Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (2012).

  On the Roman conquest of the Hellenistic world, Harris (1979) and Gruen (1986) have for long been the most influential works; but see now also Harris (2016).

  For the Hellenistic world, especially the cities, under Roman rule, a good starting point is Dimitriev (2005); see also Alcock (ed.) 1997.

  For literary culture in the Roman Empire, see Johnson (2010); and a useful survey of the key evidence of Oxyrhynchus is Bowman (ed.) Oxyrhynchus: a City and its Texts (2007); see also Cribiore (1996) and (2005) on education in the eastern Roman Empire.

  CHAPTER 8

  For the supposed dialogue between ‘Amr ibn al-’As and John Philoponus see Canfora (1989) ch. 16; the evidence comes from Ibn al-Kifti’s Ta’rikh al-Hukama (“Chronicle of Wise Men”). On John Philoponus see further e.g. Sorabji (1993); and on his afterlife in Islamic thought as Yahya al-Nahwi see the entry by R. Wisnovsky in Encyclopaedia of Islam (2012).