Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great

By

Krzysztof Nawotka
 Alexander the Great, by Krzysztof Nawotka

This book first published 2010

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2010 by Krzysztof Nawotka

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-1743-0, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-1743-1

 CONTENTS

Preface ....................................................................................................... vii

Chapter I: Childhood, Family, Macedonia .................................................. 1

1. Birth of Alexander
2. Macedonia
3. The Argead dynasty
4. Philip II and the rebuilding of the Macedonian state
5. Philip II and Alexander’s Macedonian army
6. Alexander’s childhood and school years

Chapter II: The Heir to the Throne ............................................................ 43

1. At his father’s side
2. Chaeronea
3. The congress at Corinth and the beginning of the Persian war
4. The Pixodarus affair
5. Cleopatra’s wedding
6. Death of Philip

Chapter III: The New King........................................................................ 83

1. The takeover. Philip’s funeral
2. War in the north
3. The destruction of Thebes

Chapter IV: From Abydos to Alexandria ................................................ 109

1. Granicus – the first victory
2. Freedom for Greeks of Asia
3. From Halicarnassus to Cilicia: the campaign in Asia Minor
4. The battle of Issus
5. Phoenicia, Syria and Palestine
6. The son of Ammon
vi Contents

Chapter V: King of Asia.......................................................................... 213

1. From Memphis to Mesopotamia
2. The revolt of Agis III
3. The battle of Gaugamela
4. Babylon, Susa and Persepolis
5. The death of Darius III
6. Philotas affair and the fall of Parmenion
7. The conquest of eastern Iran
8. Time of intrigues and anxiety

Chapter VI: Expedition to India .............................................................. 295

1. From Sogdiana to the Indus
2. Taxila and Porus
3. Hyphasis – the end of the expedition
4. Towards the Ocean

Chapter VII: The Last Years ................................................................... 331

1. In the footsteps of Cyrus and Semiramis
2. Empire in crisis
3. The weddings at Susa
4. The mutiny at Opis
5. Greece in 324: the exiles and a new god
6. The death of Hephaestion
7. Return to Babylon

Chapter VIII: Death, Last Plans, Tomb ................................................... 371

1. The king died
2. Alexander’s legacy
3. Alexander’s tomb

Bibliography............................................................................................ 387

Index........................................................................................................ 419
 PREFACE

Alexander III, King of Macedonia, son of Philip II and heir to Achaemenid

kings of Persia, is one of the most fascinating and frequently discussed
figures of world history. By contemporaries he was more commonly hated
rather than admired or loved, but soon after his death his legend began and
it is still alive today. A belletristic account of his life and deeds – the so-
called Alexander Romance – was in ancient, the medieval and early
modern times one of the most universally known books in Europe, Asia,
and Africa having some 80 versions written in 24 different languages. The
book’s protagonist was the first in Western Civilization to be hailed Great,
in all probability a title already bestowed upon him when the generation
remembering his deeds was still alive, at the court of his onetime brother
in arms – Ptolemy I of Egypt. Alexander’s brief reign marks a borderline
between two great epochs of ancient times: the Classical and the
Hellenistic. And this is by no means merely a convention in historiography.
Without any exaggeration one can say that after his death the world was
no longer the same as when he had ascended the Macedonian throne,
regardless of whether one believes that this was a direct consequence of
Alexander’s actions or simply the effect of general historic processes that
were underway in the second half of the 4th century BC. Someone who so
much personifies this great turning point in the history of the Western
civilization naturally attracts scholarly interest. On the other hand, the
specific aura and charisma of this young ruler, the scale of his conquests
and the exotic landscapes and peoples encountered during a tireless trek of
over 35,000 km spanning three continents is what the broader public have
always found particularly appealing.
That is why for a long time now not even a year has passed without a
new book on Alexander. Apart from detailed studies, a number of
complete monographs now exist whose authors frequently stress that they
are not biographies. Strictly speaking if we were to apply the same
rigorous definition of what a biography is to antiquity as we do to later
epochs, virtually no biography related to this period could be written. But
since so many non-biographies of Alexander already exist, I believe that
there is space for a new biography, if only somewhat relaxed genre
defining criteria are applied. This necessitates presenting Alexander as a
component of the historical processes in his epoch and considering his
viii Preface

influence on the developments in Greece, Macedonia, the Persian Empire

and neighbouring countries. Another reason for focusing more on
Alexander as a person is the growing awareness that ancient societies were
far less institutionalised than was assumed in modern times and in fact
they operated on a much more personal level. Today we know that
concepts as obvious in modern states as automatic procedures or Weberian
impersonal rational bureaucracies were quite unheard of not only in the
feudal Persia of the Achemenids but also in 4th-century Greece and
Macedonia. In a world where borders as we understand them today did not
exist and relationships between people from various countries were
frequently stronger than loyalty to a particular state, the significance of
such a powerful personality on the shaping of events cannot be overrated.
Finally, although Alexander is considered to be the greatest military
commander of ancient times and, indeed, much of this book deals with the
wars fought during his reign, it was not this author’s intention to make a
meaningful contribution to military history. Instead it is hoped that this
book will interest the reader in Alexander as a man and politician of
outstanding talents and unparalleled charisma, but also one who erred in
judgment and more than once displayed grave character faults.
Three reasons may be found to justify the writing of yet another book
entitled Alexander the Great. First, of the many books on this subject the
last comprehensive, serious and, indeed, in this author’s opinion, the most
important monograph was published over twenty years ago (Bosworth
1988) and since then our perception of various aspects of antiquity has
changed. Of particular value has been the rapid progress in study of the
Achaemenid Persia, which has been experiencing an extraordinary boom
in its last three decades. Ancient Persia has in many ways now been
rediscovered. This has come about thanks to: the Persepolis tablets (some
of which have only recently been published), other oriental and
archaeological sources, detailed analyses of references made by the
classical authors and a general movement away from the purely western
perspective that had prevailed for years. Especially since P. Briant’s
monumental synthesis (1996), our understanding of how the Achaemenid
state was run and therefore also the Macedonian conquests from the
Persian perspective have had to change. Moreover, our general knowledge
of eastern societies and their response the Macedonian invader has been
broadened by a systematic uncovering of sources from these regions,
particularly ones originating from Babylon. Finally, in recent years many
important monographs have come out on: history and topography of
territories covered by Alexander’s expedition (in general Wood, 1997);
Macedonia (Hammond, 1989; Borza, 1990; Errington, 1990) Iran, India,
 Alexander the Great ix

and other regions of the ancient world (e.g. Holt, 1988; Eggermont, 1993;
Karttunen, 1997; Habicht, 1999; Debord, 1999; Sartre, 2001, 2003; Speck,
2002); specific aspects of 4th-century history such as the attitude of
mainland Greece towards Macedonia (Jehne, 1994; Blackwell, 1999); the
way the elites functioned in Greece (Herman, 1987; Mitchell, 2002) and
Macedonia (Heckel, 1992); the position of women in Macedonia (Carney,
2000) and Persia (Brosius, 1996); Macedonian colonization (Fraser, 1996);
finances and numismatics (Le Rider, 2003; Holt, 2003); history of art and
ideology (Stewart, 1993; Cohen, 1997) as well as the first monographs on
Darius III (Briant, 2003), Olympias (Carney, 2006), and new biographies
of Philip II (Hammond, 2002; Corvisier, 2002; Worthington, 2008). To
that there is a plethora of new books on military history, although without
much real progress except for the critical assessment of study of
Macedonian army logistics pioneered by Engels in 1978 (Roth, 1999). All
this new knowledge and all these new interpretations clearly require the
actions and personality of Alexander to be once again reviewed.
Second, for a long time it has been a common knowledge that the
most serious obstacle faced in Alexander research is the number and
quality of historical sources available. A few authors were already writing
about Alexander in his lifetime and over a dozen more wrote about him
not long after his death when they still had access to eyewitness accounts.
Unfortunately all these works have disappeared almost without a trace.
The earliest extant historical work to mention Alexander at least in passing
is that of Polybius, who wrote in the mid 2nd century BC, whereas the most
important ancient accounts date from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. The
quality of these accounts depends not only on the considerable time that
had elapsed between the time of writing and the epoch of Alexander, but
also on the methods the authors used, frequently relying on a single
source. Ancient Alexander historians are customarily classified into two
groups depending on the sources they use. One is the works of Flavius
Arrianus (Arrian) and the anonymous Itinerarium Alexandri, which are
based on the writings of Alexander’s companions – the King of Egypt
Ptolemy I and Aristobulos. Their accounts are of greater value for events
prior to 327 BC, for they made use of the now missing books of the
famous historian Callisthenes of Olynthus, who also accompanied
Alexander. The second category, commonly called the Vulgate, includes
Diodorus, Curtius Rufus and Justin, who above all based their writings on
the Alexandrian historian Cleitarchus, Ptolemy’s contemporary. Plutarch
cannot be included in either of these groups, for this outstandingly erudite
scholar made use of the works of as many as 24 different authors, mainly
Alexander’s contemporaries, in an extraordinarily modern way. To the
x Preface

modern reader Arrian’s rhetoric is more palpable than that of the Vulgate
authors and for this reason he was for many years considered to be the
most trustworthy source. However, his methodology in fact simply relied
on rejecting information that might in any way cast Alexander in a
negative light and thus his stance primarily reflects the Macedonian
propaganda version of events. W.W. Tarn and N.G.L. Hammond both
largely rely on Arrian and to give him greater credibility they maintain the
theory regarding the existence of the Royal Journal (ephemerides), which
was allegedly kept at Alexander’s court throughout his reign and later
taken to Alexandria in Egypt, where it served as a source for Ptolemy and
thus also indirectly as a source for Arrian.
Source research in recent decades has uncovered so much new
information regarding Alexander’s history that writing a new biography
has become both possible and necessary. Commentary on Arrian and
other studies by A.B. Bosworth (1980, 1988a and 1995) have shed new
light on Arrian’s methods, his reliance on earlier sources and generally
allowed us to wonder whether the significance of this ancient author
regarding the life and times of Alexander may have been somewhat
overrated. At the same time the value of the so-called Vulgate authors
have undergone a positive reappraisal, particularly thanks to new
commentaries (Atkinson, 1980, 1994 and 2009) and other studies
(Baynham, 1998a) on Curtius Rufus, who for all his extravagant rhetoric
and moralising is a very valuable author especially in that he was well
informed about events within the Persian camp. Although today hardly
anyone believes in the existence of the so-called mercenary source, i.e. an
account written by a Greek mercenary in the Persian camp that Curtius
Rufus and Diodorus had seen, evidence corroborating what these authors
write about the Persian camp has been found. Therefore we can assume
that the Vulgate authors had indirect access to this information from
earlier historians who had actually heard the oral accounts of Greek
mercenaries on Persian pay. Interest in Plutarch is currently undergoing a
genuine revival, whereas the commentary to his Alexander (Hamilton,
1999; 1st edition in 1969) is rightly considered to be classics of the genre.
Historical and philological commentaries have also appeared to his other
work: On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great (D’Angelo,
1998; Cammarota, 1998; Nawotka, 2003). Finally scholars have now more
boldly made use of smaller anonymous works such as the Metz Epitome
(which is associated with the Vulgate group though it makes no references
to the others and is based on the works of historians a generation after
Alexander) or extant fragments of the writings of Alexander’s
contemporaries Ephippus and Chares. The author of this book agrees with
 Alexander the Great xi

those (Plezia, Bielawski, 1970) who argue that the document found in an
Arab manuscript is the translation of a genuine letter from Aristotle to
Alexander regarding the treatment of Greeks and barbarians. With newly
discovered 4th-century Greek inscriptions as well as already well known
but newly researched ones we have an increasingly better understanding of
Alexander’s policies towards the Greeks and how they were received –
differently on the east coast of the Aegean and differently on the west
coast. Of particular value is the steadily increasing amount of eastern
sources, which not only allow us to more accurately establish the dates of
key events but also move away from the Eurocentric view held in some
earlier studies. That is also the value of later, even mediaeval Zoroastrian
sources maintaining the Persian tradition, which unlike the western
sources was consistently hostile towards Alexander.
Third, one should note how historical interpretations have changed
over recent decades. In the period immediately after World War II the
immense influence of W.W. Tarn’s book (1948) gave Alexander the image
of a benign propagator of the Western civilization and the brotherhood of
the various peoples within one empire. The work of another great scholar
from that period, F. Schachermeyr (1973), gave us the heroic image of this
great Macedonian and it is not surprising that the first edition of his
monumental biography (1947) is entitled Ingenium und Macht. However,
scholars subscribing to this traditional view of Alexander (e.g. Hammond
or Lane Fox) are now very much a minority among historians. The tragic
consequences of 20th-century militarism and totalitarianism, a gradual
departure from European colonialism and the mission of taking up ‘the
white man’s burden’ as well as from the traditional world outlook in the
postmodern era inevitably led to a revision or even deconstruction of
Alexander the Great’s character. The process of diminishing Alexander’s
greatness has been continuing since the 1950s. A decisive blow to the
predominance of Tarn’s image of Alexander was delivered by E. Badian
(1960, 1964), for whom the Macedonian prefigured the 20th-century
dictators Stalin and Hitler, being preoccupied with organising large-scale
purges and surrounded by the ‘loneliness of power’. The next step in the
new trend was to reject the notion that Alexander was motivated by any
grand ideas or non-military objectives. Today’s chief proponents of this
minimalist view, represented above all by P. Green, A.B. Bosworth and I.
Worthington, have reduced Alexander’s life to purely a matter of military
history. Excluding his talents as a commander (although sometimes
questioned too), Alexander has now all too frequently been depicted as a
megalomaniac, alcoholic (most vividly: O’Brien 1992; more balanced:
Kets de Vries, 2004), tyrant and hothead who for no profound reason laid
xii Preface

waste to the local cultures of Europe, Asia and Africa and thus, as it is
sometimes asserted, is to be blamed for radical Islam’s hatred of the West
(Prevas, 2004). Such extreme views may only be expressed if one treats
sources very selectively, and that surely indicates that the pendulum of
reaction against the over idealisation of the great Macedonian has swung
too far in the opposite direction (Holt, 1999a; Briant, 2002). Nonetheless, I
believe, that without either idealizing or deconstructing Alexander, his
times may be reassessed from a non-military perspective. For instance in
the light of recent research of 4th-century Greek society it is worthwhile to
consider the reasons why Macedonian policies succeeded or failed on
either side of the Aegean Sea. The last quarter century’s breakthroughs in
research into Achaemenid Persia in fact demand that the effectiveness of
Alexander’s policies in the various countries of the Persian Empire be
reviewed in terms of his attitude towards Achaemenid tradition and
cultural conflicts during his campaign in the East. Although for a long
time yet to come no doubt no one will dare formulate any grand theories
the way Tarn did, there is now enough room to make careful
generalisations and sum up the historical discussions of the last few
decades.
This book presents the story of Alexander strictly on the basis of
ancient sources. In the footnotes I have endeavoured to refer to all primary
and most secondary ancient sources. On the other hand, for all effort to
synthesise modern scholarship in this book, no attempt has been made to
cite all modern literature concerning Alexander and his epoch. The sheer
volume of such works would make the task quite unfeasible and, from the
point of view of most readers, both tedious and unnecessary. Those
specifically interested in historiography concerning Alexander the Great
can refer to specialist literature dealing with this subject (e.g. Seibert,
1972). Footnotes in this book may serve to inform the reader of the most
important historical discussions of recent decades. The names of ancient
authors and the titles of their works are quoted using the abbreviations also
applied in the Oxford Latin Dictionary and Liddell, Scott, Jones’ Greek-
English Lexicon. The titles of periodicals are abbreviated according to
L’Année Philologique. When ancient times are discussed in this book,
unless otherwise stated, all given dates are BC/ BCE.
Finally, I have the pleasant task of thanking all the people and
institutions without whose help this book would never have been
published. The several years of research and especially the enquiries made
in the libraries of Vienna and Oxford were possible thanks to generous
grants from the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research and the
Lanckoroński Foundation as well as the hospitality of St John’s College
 Alexander the Great xiii

Oxford within the Oxford Colleges Hospitality Scheme and on other

occasions. I am grateful to the University of Wrocław for financing my
trips to Turkey and Iran for the purposes of seeing for myself the
topographic problems Alexander’s expedition must have encountered. The
English version of this book is based on the Polish edition of 2007, with
numerous improvements and corrections. The translation was produced by
Witold Zbirochowski-Kościa, whose careful attention to details, linguistic
skills and patience I would like to acknowledge in this place. It could be
made thanks to a grant from the Foundation for Polish Science which had
also supported the Polish edition of my book. I have presented various
research problems at conferences in Rzeszów, Barcelona, Kraków and
Wrocław as well as historical society meetings and seminars in Wrocław,
Warsaw, Toruń, Liverpool, Taipei, Delhi, and Delphi. I would like to
thank those, too many to name here, who provided insightful and
frequently critical comments during the discussions that followed my
lectures. Some mistakes I have been able to correct thanks to talks with
many scholars. Among those I am particularly grateful to, are: Prof.
Fergus Millar, late Prof. Józef Wolski, Prof. Ewa Wipszycka-Bravo, Prof.
John Davies, late Prof. Tadeusz Kotula, Prof. Alicja Szastyńska-Siemion,
Prof. Maurice Sarte, Prof. Christopher Tuplin, Prof. Leszek Mrozewicz,
Prof. Andrzej Łoś, Dr. Zofia Archibald, Dr. John Ma, Dr. Gościwit
Malinowski, Nicholas Purcell and Robin Lane Fox. But I dedicate my
most heartfelt thanks to my wife, Małgorzata MoŜdŜyńska-Nawotka, who
has over the years provided the unstinting support that allowed me to
research and write this book.
 CHAPTER I:

CHILDHOOD, FAMILY, MACEDONIA

1. Birth of Alexander
In Antiquity people believed that the birth of someone destined to be great
was accompanied by signs, portents and strange happenings. Alexander’s
biographer, Plutarch, states that his mother, Olympias, dreamt of a fiery
thunderbolt that had entered her body, whereas his father, Philip II,
envisioned in his dream a seal on his wife’s body in the shape of a lion,
which allegedly foretold the extraordinary ‘lion-like’ nature of his son.
Another persistently repeated tale has Philip seeing in a dream on the night
of consumption Olympias having sexual intercourse with a giant serpent,
presumably an incarnation of the god Ammon from the Siwah Oasis in the
Libyan Desert. According to a much later legend, emerging no doubt after
Alexander’s visit to Siwa, Philip was then told by the Apollo Oracle at
Delphi to henceforth offer sacrifices to Ammon and was also told a
prophecy that he would lose the eye with which he had seen the deity lying
next to Olympias.1 Such tales could emerge from the traditional view that
Olympias had in her native Epirus engaged in mysterious Orphic rituals,
which were much feared by the Greeks, and an important element of this
practice was the breeding of serpents in her home.2 The belief that
Alexander was conceived by the god Ammon did not mean in the opinions
of contemporaries that he was not the son of Philip. After all, they knew
the myth of Alexander’s forebear Heracles, who was the son of Alcmene
but also of the god Zeus. At various stages in his career, Alexander
himself sometimes boasted that he was the son of Philip and at other times
allowed people to believe that he was conceived by the god Ammon.3

1
Ephor., FGrH, 70 F217; Plu., Alex., 2-3; Paus., 4.14.7; Luc., Alex., 7; Just.,
11.11.3, 12.16; It. Alex., 12; see Baynham, 1998, p. 149; Hamilton, 1999, pp. 4-6.
For an alternative version of the legend, but one still maintaining the notion of
divine conception and lion shaped seal, see: Ps.-Callisth., 1.4-8.
2
Cic. Div., 2.135: Plu., Alex., 2.9; see Lane Fox, 1973, pp. 44-45.
3
Ogden, 1999, pp. 27-28.
2 Chapter I

The Greek authors, always eager to synchronize historic events, state

that Alexander was born the same night one of the Seven Wonders of the
World, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, was burnt down by Herostratus
in the desire of immortalizing his name. The goddess was too busy
assisting Olympias in the birth of Alexander to protect her own temple
from destruction. Iranian magi living next to the temple lamented, for they
foresaw that what had happened that night would bring great misfortune to
Asia, which meant the Kingdom of Persia.4 Plutarch reports an anecdote
that Philip, while laying siege to the town of Potidaea, in one day received
news that his army commander Parmenion had routed the Illyrians, that his
race-horse had won a race at the Olympic Games, and that his wife had
given birth to Alexander. We know nothing more about the battle with the
Illyrians and therefore have no means of establishing the date. There is an
image on Philip II’s coins of a cloaked rider with a Macedonian hat
(kausia) on his head commemorating an Olympic victory, though we
cannot be certain whether they refer to an individual horse race or a
chariot race. Far more significant is that fact that this was almost certainly
the first ever Macedonian victory at the Olympic Games. Although
Herodotus does in fact report an earlier success at the time of Philip’s
predecessor Alexander I, this was possibly just a propaganda ploy
invented by the Macedonian court, for this king’s name has not been
preserved on the list of Olympic victories. Philip’s Olympic success
probably occurred on 26th July 356, whereas Alexander was born on the
sixth day of the Athenian month Hekatombaion, called Loos in
Macedonia, which according to modern calculations would have most
probably been either 19th or 20th July 356.5

2. Macedonia
Alexander’s fatherland was situated to the north of Thessaly with borders
that have not been precisely defined but most certainly did not resemble
the borders of today’s Macedonian state (FYROM)6 and were much closer

4
Hegesias, ap. Plu., Alex., 35-36 (FGrH, 142 F3); Timae., ap. Cic., N.D., 2.69;
Cic., Div., 1.47; Plu., Alex., 2.7. Burning of Artemisium by Herostratus: Str.,
14.22.1; Solinus, 183.23. Magi in Ephesus: Str., 14.1.23. See Briant 1996, p. 875;
Shabazi 2003, pp. 7-14. Asia as the Persian empire: Nawotka 2004.
5
Plu., Alex., 3.5-8; Plu., mor., 105a; Just., 12.16.6. Brown 1977, pp. 76-77; Badian
1982, p. 38; Bosworth 1988, p. 19; Hammond 1992, pp. 356-357; Hamilton 1999,
pp. 7-9. Alexander I at the Olympic Games: Hdt., 5.23; but see Borza 1982, pp. 8-
13; Thompson 1982, p. 113.
6
On fluidity of the name Macedonia see: Czamańska, Szulc 2002.
 Childhood, Family, Macedonia 3

to the borders of today’s Greek province of Macedonia. The fluidity of

Macedonia’s borders even in Antiquity means that from the political
history point of view it is most convenient to define the borders as the
circumference of those territories ruled by Macedonian kings excluding
the conquered areas of Greece, Thrace and Asia. During the reigns of
Philip II and Alexander the kingdom was divided into two: Lower
Macedonia in the east and Upper Macedonia in the southwest. At the start
of his reign Philip II only had control of Lower Macedonia, which was
indeed the cradle of the Argead dynasty.
Upper Macedonia is a mountainous region stretching from the Emathia
Plain to the Pindos Mountains and including the catchment area of the
river Haliakmon as well as the upper reaches of the river Axios (Vardar).
Almost the entire region (90%) is over 500 m above sea level, whereas
50% is above 1,500 m. In that part of the Balkan Peninsula the main
mountain ranges run longitudinally. The Haliakmon Valley is situated
between two such ranges, those of the Pindos Mountains and the southern
ranges of the Dinaric Alps (Peristeri, Vitsi, Vourinos). In Antiquity Upper
Macedonia was divided into several smaller states and in the Haliakmon
Valley itself there were: Orestis in the north, Tymphaeaa to the south and
Elimeia to the east of Tymphaea. The remaining Upper Macedonia states
were situated further east and separated from Lower Macedonia by the
Vermion range, namely: Palagonia in the north and Lyncestis and Eordaia
in the south. Upper Macedonia was ethnically mixed. Apart from the
Macedonian tribes such as the Elimeians and Lyncestis, there were tribes
more closely related to the Greek Molossians of Epirus, such as the
Orestians. Illyrian elements have also been traced among the inhabitants of
this part of Macedonia. The ethnic diversity of Upper Macedonia is
considered an important factor accounting for its looser ties with the
central authorities in Lower Macedonia. The Upper Macedonia tribes were
ruled by their own dynasties, the most important of which was the
Lyncestis’ royal family, the Bacchiads once expelled from Corinth by the
tyrant Cypselus. Relations between the Argeads and the ruling families of
Upper Macedonia were frequently marked by mutual distrust and political
rivalry. If we add to that the basic weakness of the Lower Macedonia
government, it is hardly surprising that before Philip ascended to power,
bonds between the Argead kingdom and the Upper Macedonia states were
at best loose.7
Lower Macedonia was situated by the Thermaic Gulf, in an alluvial
valley where the silt had accumulated from the rivers Haliakmon, Axios,

7
Errington 1990, chapter i; Billows 1994, p. 3.
4 Chapter I

Ludias and Gallikos. It was surrounded by mountain ridges (Paiko, Voras,

Vermion and Pieria) and the Pieria plain at the foot of Mount Olympus.
One has to remember that in the 4th century BC the shore of the Thermaic
Gulf was some 30 km further inland than it is today and thanks to the river
Ludias seafaring ships could sail up to the port of Pella, the capital of
Philip and Alexander’s kingdom. A large part of low-lying Emathia
situated above that river was in Antiquity a barren uninhabitable
marshland. The area was not drained until the 1920s, and no traces of
earlier permanent human settlement have been found there. Attempts to
drain these marshes during Philip’s reign were doomed to fail because
contemporary technical knowledge was quite inadequate to deal with the
sheer scale of the task. Worse still, the predominance of marshland in parts
of Lower Macedonia resulted in malaria epidemics that affected not only
the local population but also agricultural output. Settlements were
concentrated on terraces on the sides of the bordering mountains. On the
south side of the lower course of the Haliakmon and to the south of the
Emathia, close to today’s village of Vergina, lay the first Agread capital –
Aegae. The fertile and well irrigated parts of Macedonia allowed for the
growing of crops and rearing of cattle. In the 4th century many Macedonians
were still engaged in herding, taking cattle up in the mountains in the
summer and then taking the herds down to lower lying areas for the
winter. We also know that wine was produced, though on account of its
cooler climate outside of the seacoast there were no olive trees, so typical
for the Mediterranean zone. At least 1/3 of ancient Macedonia was
covered with forests and all wood collected from these forests belonged to
a royal monopoly. This was both economically and politically very
important because the sea powers of the Greek world, particularly Athens,
lacked their own forests and therefore were forced to import wood from
Macedonia.8
By the end of Philip II’s reign the Kingdom of Macedonia covered a
territory of 43,000 km2, which was several times larger than even the
largest of the ancient Greek states. Thanks to the conditions of its soil and
climate Macedonia was able to produce abundant crops capable of feeding
a large number of people despite obviously primitive agricultural methods.
Although no sources provide enough data to adequately estimate the
number of Philip II or Alexander’s subjects, the number of soldiers these
rulers were able to deploy in Macedonia itself indicates that the
demographic potential must have been large, though probably not over

8
Geography of Macedonia principally after: Borza 1990, pp. 23-57, 287-299; also
Corvisier 2002, pp. 37-41; Thomas 2007, pp. 23-32.
 Childhood, Family, Macedonia 5

two million as Hammond believed.9 Historians have tried to calculate

ancient Macedonia’s population on the basis of 19th-century census
records, assuming that under the backward and unindustrialised Ottoman
Empire the population size would have been more or less the same as it
had been in the same area in Antiquity when it was supported by cattle
herding and primitive agriculture. According to such estimates
Macedonia’s population at the start of Alexander’s campaign was
approximately 1-1.5 million. However, there are other theories which
suggest that populations in the pre-industrialised age did grow, though so
slowly as to be indiscernible. Accordingly the population of Macedonia at
the end of Philip II’s reign would have amounted to approximately
660,000. Even if we take the lowest of these estimates, at the time of
Philip and Alexander there would have been roughly three times more
Macedonians than inhabitants of the largest Greek polis of Athens, with
populations well under 300,000 and in that 100,000 citizens of both sexes
at the most.10
The matter of ancient Macedonians’ ethnicity is one of the most hotly
discussed issues regarding those times. Ancient sources frequently
mention speeches or simple remarks being uttered in Macedonian by
Alexander or other Macedonians of his day or from the later times of the
Diadochi. For years scholars have been arguing whether or not by stating
that something was said in Macedonian meant that they were merely using
a Greek dialect or in fact a quite separate language. The academic dispute
has become even more heated on account of the more than century-old
political conflict over territory and independence. Both sides of the
political dispute have tried to gain a moral advantage over their opponents
by resorting to ‘historical’ arguments as to the right to land on account of
its ethnic past. At the turn of the 20th century Macedonia – the
southernmost state of the Balkans at the time of the emergence of modern
nationalisms – was ethnically a very complex country with a predominance
of Slavic elements. That was when the Greeks started claiming there rights
to the land on account of its ancient history. The reason the Greeks felt
they had a stronger claim to Macedonia than for instance the Bulgarians
was because, according to them, the Macedonian state had for so long had
a Greek ethnicity and it was already clearly visible in Antiquity, especially
during the reigns of its most illustrious rulers Philip II and Alexander the

9
Hammond 1994, p. 40, n. 38.
10
Billows 1994, pp. 198-206. Population of Attica: Hansen 1991, pp. 90-94. Low
estimates for Attica (ca. 200,000) and Macedonia (660,000) are after Corvisier
2000, pp. 32-44. Thomas 2007, p. 49 lists 700,000 for Macedonia under Philip II.
6 Chapter I

Great. This ‘official’ Greek stance is shared by many Western historians.11

However, the other, Southern Slavic (Macedonian and Bulgarian), side
also willingly use ‘historic’ arguments. They stress the non-Greek ethnic
character of ancient Macedonians and claim that they were the predecessors
of today’s Southern Slavs. With such reasoning they have even tried to
posthumously ‘Slavicise’ Alexander the Great.12
Unfortunately, pre-Hellenistic Macedonians are one of the ‘mute’
nations of history in that they have not left any traces of literature or
monumental inscriptions. Even the quite numerous graves of Macedonian
aristocrats contain no inscriptions. Only half of the 140 or so words
claimed by ancient authors to be Macedonian are undeniably of Greek
origin and even in these cases contemporary linguists do not discern a
typically Greek evolution of particular words. Moreover, although all the
ancient inscriptions discovered in Macedonia, especially in recent decades,
are in Greek, this does not mean this was the everyday language of
Macedonians. Indeed, the rulers of Thrace, Scythia and Illyria
commissioned monuments with Greek inscriptions and yet we know that
Thracians, Scythians and Illyrians had their own non-Greek languages. At
the time Greek was simply the preferred language among the cultural
elites of much of the Mediterranean area, as Latin later was in medieval
Europe. It should be remembered that in the pre-Hellenistic age all Greeks
spoke and wrote in their local dialects, not in the standardised form of the
language, koine, which in fact developed only at the start of Hellenistic
epoch. Ca. 6300 inscriptions found in Macedonia are predominantly in
(Attic) koine, some in various Greek dialects of the coastal cities and only
a tabula defixionum of Pella possibly in the local dialect close to North-
West Greek. Obviously the Attic dialect or koine could not have been the
native language of the local inhabitants. Indeed, the predominance of Attic
dialect inscriptions may in fact indicate that for the local population Greek
was a foreign language and that the ‘literary’ Attic form had been learned
only at school. Ancient authors testify that the ordinary Macedonian did
not fully understand Greek.13 This fact did not stop the most outstanding
supporter of the claim that ancient Macedonians were actually Greeks,
N.G.L Hammond, from espousing the quite curious view that the

11
Presentation of Greek position: Kalléris 1954-1976; similar: Lane Fox 1973, p.
30; Cawkwell 1978, pp. 22-23; Hammond 1979, pp. 39-54; Hammond 1999, pp.
31-33; O’Brien 1992, p. 26; Corvisier 2002, pp. 49-50; Worthington 2004, pp. 7-8;
Panayotou 2007. See: Borza 1990, pp. 3-12, 90-97.
12
Mikołajczak, Stamatoski 2002; Moroz-Grzelak 2002; Danforth 2003.
13
Borza 1990, pp. 90-94; Borza 1994; Borza 1999, pp. 41-43. See now Panayotou
2007 for Macedonian as a Greek dialect.
 Childhood, Family, Macedonia 7

Macedonian language was, indeed, a Greek dialect but one unintelligible

to the Greeks.14
Although most of the evidence does suggest that in the 4th century
Macedonian was a separate language to Greek, one cannot consider this
issue closed. After all, there is no clear dividing line between a different
dialect and a different language. For instance, many consider present-day
Macedonian to be in fact a dialect of Bulgarian. However, ethnic identity
is not only determined by language, it also depends on the awareness of
belonging to a different ethnic group or nation. Belonging to an ethnic
group depends on a subjective conviction that some common factors exist
binding a group of people together and distinguishing them from other
ethnic groups. Such factors may include: common ancestry, a common
history, culture, association with a particular territory or a sense of group
solidarity. Analysis of all extant sources unequivocally shows that in the
5th and 4th centuries the Greeks did not regard Macedonians to be part of
their ethnic group nor did the Macedonians themselves ever claim to be
Greek. It was only in the Hellenistic epoch that Macedonians became fully
Hellenised and it was only with the growing dominance of Rome in the
Balkan Peninsula that a sense of affinity developed between the
Macedonians and Greeks. It was then that Alexander the Great was
belatedly included in the pantheon of Greek national heroes. By the time
of the Roman Empire Plutarch was willingly using Alexander of
Macedonia as an example of how Greek military prowess was equal to that
of mighty Rome. However, in Alexander’s day the Macedonians had a
separate ethnos. What is more, they were aware and proud of it. The
undeniable closeness of Macedonian to Greek would have made the latter
language partly intelligible to most Macedonians. A similar situation can
be seen today among Scandinavian or Slavonic nations whose members
can understand respectively another Scandinavian or Slavonic language
even if they have never been taught it.15
Even if 4th-century Macedonians distinguished themselves ethnically
from their Greek neighbours they most probably had the same proto-Greek
roots as members of the historic Greek tribes. Moreover, the Macedonian
royal court was already becoming Hellenised in the 5th century and
especially intensively during the reign of Archelaus – the patron of many
Greek artists including Euripides. This state of affairs was partly due to a
desire to have political influence in the Greek world, but no doubt also due

14
Hammond 1995; now also Worthington 2008, p. 8.
15
Weber 1968, p. 389; Badian 1982; Haarmann 1986, pp. 260-262; Borza 1990,
pp. 90-97, 305-306; Borza 1992; Borza 1996; Hall 2000, pp. 19-26, 170-172, 177;
Nawotka 2003, p. 27; Thomas 2007, pp. 32-37.
8 Chapter I

to Macedonian awareness of the attractive aspects of contemporary Greek

culture, which indeed fascinated many Mediterranean countries of that
epoch. Naturally the ruling dynasty and aristocracy were the first to be
Hellenised. The frescos and numerous artefacts found in recent decades in
Macedonian graves from the second half of the 4th century show that the
royal court favoured Greek and especially Attic art.16
During the reign of Philip II Macedonia was still predominantly a rural
country where cities, unlike in Greece, played a very peripheral role in
both the political and economic sense. Despite efforts made by the
administration (incidentally a fact much exaggerated by many historians),
Philip’s kingdom remained poor. Before Philip’s reign there was virtually
nothing that could be called a city in Upper Macedonia, though
archaeologists have uncovered the remains of fortified settlements which
must have been the commercial centres of the rural communities. In Lower
Macedonia the only urban centre of note was the kingdom’s capital Pella,
which was by no means the ‘poor and small town’ described by
Demosthenes. In fact the length of its defensive walls at the time of Philip
II (7-8 km) was comparable to the length of the walls of Athens (6.5 km),
and although it might not have been as populous as Athens, Pella needs to
be regarded as an important urban centre.17 The other towns of Edessa,
Dion and Aegae were much less significant though the last of these, even
after it ceased being the capital, still maintained its status as the burial
place of Macedonian kings and the centre of their cults. Ancient sources
do not clearly state when the royal residence was transferred from Aegae
to Pella, but historians believe it occurred during the reign of the state’s
reformer Archelaus. Pella had no natural defence advantages and this was
a malarial region, but it was situated on an important trade route, along
which at the time of the Early Roman empire the famous road via Egnatia
was built. Furthermore, while the coastline remained under the control of
the Greek colonies of Pydna, Methone and the Chalcidian League, Pella,
with its access to the Aegean via the river Ludias was the Kingdom of
Macedonia’s only seaport. This allowed Macedonia to export timber
brought down the river Axios from the nearby mountains as well as no
doubt minerals and agricultural products.18
It was not their economic but their political significance that
distinguished Macedonian cities most from those of Greece. In the Greek
world the city and surrounding rural areas (chora) generally constituted a

16
Barr-Sharrar 1982.
17
Diod., 18.66. Montgomery 1985; Montgomery 1997; Hammond 1994, p. 56;
Thomas 2007, pp. 81-83.
18
Greenwalt 1999; Corvisier 2002, pp. 53-57.
 Childhood, Family, Macedonia 9

separate state (polis). Of course there were numerous exceptions to this

rule. There were large poleis, such as Athens, which would include more
than one urban settlement with inhabitants who had typically urban
occupations. On the other hand, there were also many small states that did
not have a single urban centre. Nevertheless, by the mid 4th century for the
Greeks the polis was almost always associated with citizenship and the
natural political centre. In accordance with contemporary convictions they
would also naturally have a democratic system of government.19 In the
Classical period no Macedonian urban settlement could be characterised as
a polis. At most some had limited autonomy but still under the supervision
of a royal prefect. Thus Macedonia avoided the political fragmentation so
typical in Greece, while all the subjects considered themselves to be
Macedonians first and only next the inhabitants of, for instance, Pella,
Edessa or Dion.20
This form of social organisation, different from the polis concept and
called ethne, was also present in neighbouring Thessaly as well as to a
large extent in Thrace. Moreover, these three countries, which were much
larger than Greek states, also kept the tribal system throughout the
Classical period. In Thrace it was still present at the time of the Roman
empire. On account of the fact that everywhere this social structure was
eventually succeeded by the polis, one cannot regard ethne to have been a
viable alternative but instead an earlier stage in the evolution of society. A
typical structure for ethne societies, even in 4th-century democracy
dominated Greece, was the oligarchy or aristocracy. The political
significance of the ruling classes rested on their control of outlying
territories or of smaller towns which, as in Greece, did not have the status
of independent states.21
The 4th-century Greek historian Theopompus states that in Macedonia
during the reign of Philip II there were 800 aristocratic hetairoi whose
revenues from landed property equalled that of 10,000 of the wealthiest
Greeks.22 It is now impossible to verify this statement and it may be a
rhetorical exaggeration. Significant, however, is the very fact that
contemporary observers perceived Macedonia to be a country dominated
by a wealthy aristocracy. Their wealth has been confirmed by the
archaeological uncovering of some 100 warrior graves whose lavishness
resembled more those of nobles from the Mycenaean age or those of
contemporary Thracian aristocrats than those of Greeks of classical age.

19
Arist., Pol., 1286b20. See Gauthier 1984, p. 86; Quass 1979.
20
Errington 1990, pp. 222-234.
21
Archibald 2000.
22
FGrH, 115 F225b.
10 Chapter I

The most sumptuous sepulchres are the royal graves at Vergina, which
shall be discussed in detail in Chapter III. The number of hetairoi during
Philip II’s reign rose to approximately 1,800. This would have been so not
only because of a natural rise in the number of Macedonian aristocrats
resulting from the country’s prosperity, but also from a large influx of
foreigners, especially Greeks. The closeness between the king of
Macedonia and his aristocrats is apparent in their name, hetairoi, which
simply means companions – the king’s companions. The hetairoi
accompanied the king in battle as well as in hunting and feasting, yet in
the monarch’s regular presence they were bound by none of the
submissiveness and strict adherence to court ceremony that was so typical
of ancient states of the East. The lack of an administrative or court
hierarchy meant that both Philip II and Alexander ruled with the aid of
their closest entourage, especially a group of seven to eight
Somatophylakes (‘personal bodyguards’). Despite their name, the latter
were not only to physically protect their king but also serve as officers
carefully selected from the king’s most trusted men to carry out special
missions. The king, who wore no unique garments or head covering
distinguishing him from his wellborn subjects, was probably addressed by
name. Indeed, the ancient authors draw our attention to the fact that there
was generally little social distance between Macedonian kings and their
subjects, who in the Classical and Hellenistic periods still had easy access
to their monarch and relative freedom to speak out (parrhesia) in his
presence. The abilities of riding a horse, using weapons and hunting were
an essential part of every young Macedonian aristocrat’s education. The
hunting down of the first wild boar and the killing of the first enemy in
battle were elements of the Macedonian ‘rites of passage’. It was only then
that a young aristocrat was entitled to wear a belt and feast, as was the
fashion in the ancient world, in a half reclined position. The Greeks were
shocked by a peculiar form of pederasty practiced by Philip II’s hetairoi in
which the adult could be the passive partner in a homosexual
relationship.23 Macedonian aristocrats loved breeding horses which
originated from the famous Median Nesaian breed brought over to
Macedonia during the Persian rule.24
Little is known about Macedonia’s lower social orders before the
Hellenistic period as they were not an object of interest to ancient authors.
The usual custom in the Balkan states was for the aristocracy to rule over a
serf majority, who in Thessaly were called the penestai. And such was no

23
Theopomp., FGrH, 115 F225. Flower 1994, pp. 109-119.
24
Errington 1990, pp. 152-154, 219-220; Billows 1990, pp. 19-22; Borza 1990, pp.
85-88; Badian 1996, pp. 11-12; Heckel 2003, pp. 206-208.
 Childhood, Family, Macedonia 11

doubt also the social structure in aristocratically dominated Macedonia.25

This social structure probably determined the composition of the
Macedonian army, whose only valuable element was the aristocratic
cavalry. This would have been so on account of the fact that in most
ancient states the army was composed of citizens or subjects who were
obliged to equip themselves for war at their own cost. Therefore lacking
their own adequately protective (and expensive) armour, proper training
and no doubt motivation, serfs were a lightly armed infantry of virtually
no military value, especially when pitched against the phalanx: the basic
Greek formation of classical times which had for centuries dominated
battlefields in the Mediterranean zone. The phalanx was also a product of
the given social structure and mentality of the polis, inhabited as it was by
a predominantly free and relatively well-off peasantry. The polis citizen
would acquire his own hoplite equipment, which included a breastplate,
helmet, greaves, a large circular shield, a spear and a sword. It is estimated
that in all such equipment would have cost approximately 300 drachmas,
which was more or less as much as a hired worker could earn in a year.
This meant that genuinely poor landless people who had to support
themselves by working for others could not become hoplites. On the other
hand, hoplite armour was considerably cheaper than the purchase of a
warhorse, which could cost from 500 to 6,000 drachmas. Moreover the
feeding and care of such a horse could be compared to the annual
expenditure of a family of six. The fact that riders were expected to cover
all these costs meant that only the very richest could afford to serve in the
cavalry, which traditionally remained the preserve of aristocracy.26
Therefore the predominance in Greek armies of hoplites, i.e. middle-class
soldiers, reflects the egalitarian and democratic aspect of the polis.
Apart from being relatively well trained, the hoplites were noted for
their courage, determination, ability to maintain discipline on the
battlefield and solidarity among brothers in arms. These were
characteristics associated with the civic nature of the polis, where the
decision to wage war was decided at public gatherings by the votes of
citizens after open and free debates. The amateur composition of the
citizens’ army determined its preferred military tactic which was to try to
resolve a war with one rapid hoplite attack. The phalanx was usually eight
ranks deep and would advance on the enemy by breaking into a run in an
attempt to break his lines with a massed full frontal assault, i.e. without
any complicated manoeuvres or use of tactical reserves. The only

25
Billows 1994, pp. 9-10.
26
Figures after Hanson 1999, especially pp. 104-105, 226-227.
12 Chapter I

contemporary formation capable of withstanding such an attack was

another phalanx. Greek city-state armies were, however, reluctant to fight
protracted wars far from their polis. Such was the prestige of the phalanx
as the most important formation in the Greek army that for a long time
some of the wealthier citizens chose to serve in the heavily armed infantry
rather than the traditional preserve of the aristocracy, the cavalry. This
exceptional prestige stemmed not only from the fact that the infantry
decided the outcomes of battles and therefore also the fate of the city-state,
but also because being a hoplite required particular courage and physical
prowess. What is more, in some states, such as Sparta, weaker men served
in the cavalry, whereas the phalanx was reserved for the very best
warriors. This image of Greek city-state armies started to change in the 4th
century when the cavalry regained importance and highly trained
mercenary light infantry (peltastai) units were introduced. Nevertheless,
up to the Battle of Chaeronea or even later faith in the citizen hoplite
army’s ability to deliver the decisive blow was upheld in Greek military
doctrine.27
Ancient sources provide no convincing evidence of the permanent
existence of a fully battle worthy infantry in the Macedonian army before
the reign of Philip II and Diodorus actually claims that Philip was the
creator of the Macedonian phalanx.28 Some historians even claim that on
account of the social conditions the creation of such a hoplite infantry
would have been impossible. Contemporary states lacking appropriate
social or cultural conditions to have their own citizens’ hoplite army
usually hired mercenaries. Such a course of action was taken up by the
Great King and satraps of the western provinces of Persia, the rulers of
Egypt as well as the tyrants of Thessaly, though in the last of these
countries attempts to form its own heavy infantry had been made since at
least the 6th century. The primitive level of agriculture combined with the
aristocratic character of the state meant that Macedonian kings lacked the
financial resources to hire very well trained but expensive Greek
mercenaries. Before the reign of Philip II Macedonia’s army was usually
limited to the aristocratic cavalry and primitive light infantry, both of
which stood little chance against the Greek phalanx on the battlefield. That
is why throughout most of the Classical period Macedonian was a
militarily weak state on whose territories the armies of stronger Greek
states frequently intervened.29 This situation changed radically under

27
Hanson 1999, pp. 84-141; van Wees 2000, pp. 87-88; Lendon 2005, pp. 102-
105.
28
Diod., 16.3.1-3.
29
Greenwalt 1999, p. 171; Archibald 2000, p. 230.
 Childhood, Family, Macedonia 13

Philip II and his reorganisation of the Macedonian army will be discussed

later in this chapter.

3. The Argead Dynasty

Macedonian tradition, preserved by Herodotus and Thucydides, speaks of
wanderings of the ancestors of the Macedonians, their conquest of Pieria
and other lands in Lower Macedonia as well as of the expulsion or
subjugation of the original inhabitants. Modern research has confirmed
that such events indeed took place around 650. It was then that the
Makedones conquered Lower Macedonia or at least the part of it in the
vicinity of Aegae, which today is associated with the archaeological
remains near the village of Vergina. Aegae became a Macedonian bastion
and the first capital of the Macedonian state, if at this early stage one can
use such a term.30 Other Macedonian tribes occupied the lands of the
Elimeia and Lyncestis in Upper Macedonia. In all probability while these
tribes were still moving the Makedon warriors were led by the Argeads,
the first Macedonian royal dynasty. It was under their leadership that over
the last 100 or 150 years the tribes went on to conquer the whole of Lower
Macedonia.
According to Herodotus, the Macedonian dynasty was descended from
Temenos of the Heraclids, the refugee from Argos. Scholars who accept
this version call it the Temenid dynasty and explain the relative stability of
their position in Macedonia as a result of their external origins.31 However,
Herodotus’s version is not confirmed by other ancient sources, whereas
the key elements – origins traced back to the Greek heroes, especially
Heracles – are a bit too typical of the genealogical tales deliberately made
up for Greek or Hellenised aristocrats to be believed. Presumably it was
invented no earlier than after the Persian wars at the court of Alexander I,
which was then trying to use Hellenophile propaganda to sway Greek
public opinion and improve relations with Athens. Philip II and Alexander
III, on the other hand, had specific political motives to stress their
genealogical affinity with Heracles in particular.32
Alexander I was the actual founder of the Macedonian state and
historically its first ruler. As a very talented political player he was
consummately able to exploit not only the Persian occupation of Thrace

30
Hdt., 8.136-138; Th., 2.99. Borza 1990, pp. 84-85.
31
Hdt., 8.137-139. Hammond 1979, pp. 3-14, 152.
32
Badian 1982, pp. 34-36; Borza 1982, pp. 7-13; Huttner 1997, pp. 65-85; Hall
2000, p. 64.
14 Chapter I

and Macedonia but also their subsequent defeats at Salamis (480) and
Plataea (479) by the league of Greek states. During the time of Persian
dominance Alexander I was a loyal vassal of Darius I and Xerxes I. He
gave away his sister Gygaia to the Persian aristocrat Bubares and adopted
the Persian system of administration as well as elements of Persian culture.
Thanks to his ties with Persia, Alexander I consolidated his control over
Lower Macedonia and subjugated the mini states of Upper Macedonia.33
But at the same time he also maintained contact with Athens, selling her
Macedonian timber to build a fleet. Although tales of the Macedonian king
helping the Greeks during the 480-479 wars with Persia, particularly just
before the Battle of Plataea, are most probably apocryphal, Alexander’s
loyalty to the Persian suzerain certainly did not survive Xerxes’ European
defeat. Alexander I’s adroitness in liaising with both the Persian invader
and the ultimately victorious Greeks, particularly Athens, enabled a
peripheral and backward Macedonia to become for a short while a regional
power in its part of the Balkans.34
The next attempt to build a strong Macedonian state was undertaken by
Archelaus (413-399). He was an ally of Athens in the final phase of the
Peloponnesian War and tried to reform his weak and peripheral state by
building roads and fortresses. It was presumably his decision make Pella
Macedonia’s capital because, according to Xenophon, in 382 it was the
most important city in the land and it is hard to imagine that the shifting of
the capital would have occurred in the years of chaos that followed
Archelaus’s death.35
Besides, the reasons for the move could only have been economic as in
military terms Pella was in a more vulnerable position than the old capital
at Aegae. Indeed, thanks to the river Ludias, Pella had access to the sea,
which allowed the king of Macedon to make additional profits from the
export of timber and other forest products (pitch and resin) as well as other
natural resources. Political stability as well as the external security
provided by Archelaus’ reign allowed Macedonia to become prosperous,
as is testified by the high quality of its silver in two-drachm coins that
were issued in that period. Thucydides also attributes Archelaus with
arming his soldiers with the ‘hoplon’, which for a long time was
interpreted as evidence that he had created a heavy (hoplite) infantry.
Currently a more sceptical opinion prevails which notes the lack of any

33
Fol, Hammond 1988, p. 249; Borza 1990, pp.100-105; Brosius 2003a, pp. 230-
231.
34
Borza 1990, pp. 113-115, 123-131.
35
X., HG, 5.2.13. Hammond 1979, pp. 139-140; Borza 1990, pp. 166-171;
Greenwalt 1999, pp. 163-164.
 Childhood, Family, Macedonia 15

trace in the sources that such weapons were used by Macedonians at the
time as well as the fact that the ancient authors suggest Macedonia’s
military weakness at the start of the 4th century. However, we know that
Archelaus conducted an aggressive foreign policy and towards the end of
his reign he ordered military intervention in Thessaly on the side of the
Aleuad aristocratic family. It was thanks to this intervention that
Macedonia gained the borderland region of Perrhaebia, which provided it
with an important link to Greece. Moreover, a Macedonian garrison was
briefly installed in Thessaly’s chief city – Larissa. However, Archelaus’
successes were short-lived as Macedonian troops had to withdraw from
Thessaly as Spartan forces, then imposing hegemony over the whole of
Greece after the Peloponnesian War, moved in. Nonetheless the
Thessalian expedition is noteworthy in that it showed the direction of
Macedonian expansion which became so important in the times of Philip
II and Alexander. Even if Archelaus had actually formed some hoplite
units, they would have in all certainty been disbanded in the years of chaos
that followed his death.36 This monarch had promoted the Hellenisation of
the Macedonian elites by organising theatre festivals in Dion and inviting
to his court numerous Greek artists, including Zeuxis, Agathon, Timotheos
and Euripides, who reportedly was torn apart by a pack of dogs in Pella.37
It was this policy of Hellenisation that would prove to be his lasting
legacy.38
Archelaus’ other achievements, administrative ones, came to nothing in
the anarchic early decades of the 4th century, when the Argead dynasty
was blighted by assassinations and political coups. Mini states broke away
from Argead control in Upper Macedonia and the whole country was
subjected to repeated invasions and looting by neighbouring nations,
particularly the Illyrians. At the time of the Theban hegemony over Greece
Macedonia became de facto a Boeotian fief. As a guarantee of his loyalty,
King Alexander II had to give to the Thebans hostages, including his own
brother Philip, who spent three years in Thebes and returned to Macedonia
in 364. Shortly afterwards war broke out between Macedonia and the
Illyria, which was then rising in power and whose king, Bardylis, defeated
in battle Philip’s brother, King Perdiccas III, killing him and some 4000 of

36
Th., 2.100.2; Polyaen., 2.1.17; X., HG, 5.2.40. Milns 1976, pp. 92-93; Markle
1978, p. 485; Cawkwell 1978, p. 31; Borza 1990, pp. 165-166; Snodgrass 1999, p.
116.
37
Satyr., Vit. Eur., fr. 39.21; St.Byz., s.v. Borm∂skoj. Schorn 2004, pp. 310-311,
340.
38
Borza 1990, pp. 161-177.
16 Chapter I

his troops.39 Most history books state that the battle took place in 359,
though some historians believe that it happened somewhat earlier in 360.40

4. Philip II and the rebuilding of the Macedonian state

Born in 383 or 382, as the third son of King Amyntas III and Princess
Eurydice probably originally from the Upper Macedonian kingdom of
Lyncestis, Philip was a long way down the line of succession to the throne.
For this reason he was probably not regarded to be a particularly important
member of the family, which would account for the fact that he was so
willingly selected to be handed over to alien powers as a hostage when it
became a political necessity. When his father was still alive Philip was
given to the Illyrians to ensure Macedonian tributes were paid on time and
then in 367/366, together with 30 other Macedonians, he was next handed
over to the Thebans. Though we know very little about the young
Macedonian prince’s stay in Thebes, historians stress its significance of
this episode in the life of Philip – the future king and military innovator.
According to a legend preserved in a work by Diodorus Philip lived in the
house of the father of the Theban leader Epaminondas and together with
the latter was taught Pythagorean philosophy. This must be an apocryphal
tale as by then Epaminondas would have been around fifty and most
certainly engaged in warfare and power politics rather than learning
Pythagorean doctrine. Much later anecdotal Greek sources present Philip
as a rather uneducated man who was hardly likely to have studied
philosophy. We can only presume that from his stay in Thebes Philip
gained respect for the Boeotian army and the innovative tactics employed
by their generals as well as personal contacts with the elites of Thebes,
which was then the most powerful state in Greece.41
After his return to Macedonia, Philip received from his brother
Perdiccas III a province to govern, and it was then that he began to form
his own military units. Philip did not take part in his brother’s battle
against Bardylis, and when Perdiccas was killed, Philip along with his
nephew Amyntas, became the obvious candidate to the Macedonian
throne. Various ancient sources provide two versions of what happened
next. One states that on account of the crisis the Macedonians immediately

39
Diod., 16.2.4-5; Polyaen., 4.10.1. Pająkowski 2000, pp. 148-155.
40
Borza 1990, p. 200.
41
Diod., 16.2.2; Plu., Pel., 26.4-8; Plu., mor., 334c-d ; Just., 7.5.1-2; Scholia in
Aeschin., 3.112; Suda, s.v. K£ranoj. Ogden 1999, pp. 12-13; Carney 2000, p. 41;
Hammond 1994, pp. 8-10; Corvisier 2002, pp. 69-73.