pp. 115 - 121 (7)
p. 117 Destruction

World History, Comprehensive Volume, 3^rd Edition, by William J. Duiker & Jackson J. Spielvogel.

The Rise of Macedonia and the Conquests of Alexander

While the Greek city-states were continuing to fight each other, to their north a new and ultimately powerful kingdom was emerging in its own right. Its people, the Macedonians, were viewed as barbarians by their southern neighbors the Greeks. The Macedonians were mostly rural folk, organized in tribes, not city-states, and not until the end of the fifth century B.C.E. did Macedonia emerge as an important kingdom. When Philip II (349 -336 B.C.E.) came to the throne, he built an efficient army turned Macedonia into the chief power of the Greek world. He was soon drawn into the internecine conflicts of the Greeks.

The Greeks had mixed reactions to Philip’s growing strength. Some viewed Philip as a savior who would rescue the Greeks from themselves by uniting them. Many Athenians, however, especially the orator Demosthenes, portrayed Philip as ruthless, deceitful, treacherous, and barbaric and called upon the Athenians to undertake a struggle against him. Demosthenes’ repeated calls for action, combined with Philip’s rapid expansion, finally spurred Athens into action. Allied with a number of other Greeks states, Athens fought the Macedonians at the Batttle of Chaeronea, near Thebes, in 338 B.C.E. The Macedonian army crushed the Greeks, and Philip was now free to consolidate his control over the Greek peninsula. The Greek states were joined together in an alliance that we call the Corinthian league because they met at Corinth. All members took an oath of loyalty: “I swear by Zeus, Earth, Sun, Poseidon, Athena, Ares, and all the gods and goddesses. I will abide by peace, and I will not break agreements 2ith Philip and the Macedonian, nor will I take up arms with hostile intent against any one of those who abide by the oaths either by land or by sea.” Although Philip allowed the Greek city-states autonomy in domestic affairs, he retained the general direction of their foreign affairs. Many Greeks still objected to being in subject to the less civilized master from the north, but Philip insisted that the Greek states end their bitter rivalries and cooperate with him in a war against Persia. Before Philip could undertake his invasion of Asia, however, he was assassinated, leaving the task to his son Alexander.

Alexander the Great

Alexander was only twenty when he became king of Macedonia. The illustrious conqueror was, in many ways, prepared for kingship by his father, who had taken Alexander along on military campaigns and, indeed, had given him control of the cavalry at the important battle of Chaeronea.  After his father’s assassination, Alexander moved quickly to assert his authority, securing the Macedonian frontiers and smothering a rebellion in Greece. He then turned to his father’s dream, the invasion of the Persian Empire.

There is no doubt that Alexander was taking a chance in attacking the Persian Empire, which was still a strong state. Alexander’s fleet was inferior to that of the Persians, and his finances were shaky at best. In the spring of 334 B.C.E., Alexander entered Asia Minor with an army of 37,000 men. About half were Macedonians, the rest being Greeks and other allies. The cavalry, which would play an important role as a striking force, numbered about 5,000. Architects, engineers, historians, and scientists accompanied the army, a clear indication of Alexander’s grand vision and positive expectations at the beginning of his campaign.

His first confrontation with the Persians, at a battle at the Granicus River in 334 B.C.E., almost cost him his life but resulted in a major victory. By the spring of 333 B.C.E., the entire western half of Asia Minor was in Alexander’s hands, and the Ionian Greek cities of western Asia Minor had been “liberated” from the Persian oppressor. Meanwhile, the Persian king, Darius III, mobilized his forces to stop Alexander’s army. Although the Persian troops outnumbered Alexander’s, the battle of Issus was fought on a narrow field that canceled the advantage of superior numbers and resulted in another Macedonian success. After his victory at Issus in 333 B.C.E., Alexander turned south, and by the winter of 332, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were under his domination. He took the traditional title of pharaoh of Egypt and founded the first series of cities named after him (Alexandria) as the Greeks administrative capital of Egypt. It became (and remains today) one of Egypt’s and the Mediterranean’s worlds most important cities.

In 331 B.C.E., Alexander renewed his offensive, moved into the territory of the ancient Mesopotamian kingdoms, and fought the decisive battle with the Persians at Guagamela, not far from Babylon and then proceeded to the Persian capitals at Susa and Persepolis, where he acquired the Persian treasuries and took possession of vast quantities of gold and silver. By 330, Alexander was again on the march, pursuing Darius. After Darius was killed by his one of his own men, Alexander took the title and office of the Great King of the Persians. But he was not content to rest with the spoils of the Persian Empire.  Over the next three years, he moved east and northeast, as far as modern Pakistan. Bu summer of 327 B.C.E., he had entered India. But two more years of fighting in an exotic and difficult terrain exhausted his troops, who mutinied and refused to go on. Reluctantly, Alexander turned back, leading his men across the arid lands of north Iran. Conditions in the desert were appalling; the blazing sun and lack of water led to thousands of deaths before Alexander and his remaining troops reached Babylon. Alexander planned still more campaigns, but in June 323 B.C.E., weakened from wounds, fever, and probably excessive alcohol consumption he died at the young age of thirty-two.

The Legacy of Alexander

Alexander is one of the most puzzling great figures in history. Historians relying on the same sources give vastly different pictures of him. Some portray him as an idealistic visionary and others as a ruthless Machiavellian. How did Alexander the Great view himself? We know that he sought to imitate Achilles, the warrior-hero of Homer’s Iliad. Alexander kept a copy of the Iliad­- and a dagger- under his pillow. He also claimed to be descended from Heracles, the Greek hero who came to be worshiped as a god. No doubt, Alexander aspired to divine honors; as a pharaoh of Egypt, he became a living god according to Egyptian tradition and at one point even sent instructions to the Greek cities to “vote him a god.”

Regardless of his ideals, motives, or views about himself, one fact stands out: Alexander truly created a new age, the Hellenistic era. The word Hellenistic is derived from a Greek word meaning “to imitate Greeks.” It is an appropriate way, then, to describe an age that saw the extension of the Greek language and ideas to the non Greek world of the Middle East. Alexander’s destruction of the Persian monarchy created opportunities for Greek engineers, intellectuals, merchants, soldiers, and administrators. Those who followed Alexander and his successors participated in a new political unity based on the principle of a monarchy. His successors used force to establish military monarchies that dominated the Hellenistic world after his death. Autocratic power became a regular feature of those Hellenistic monarchies and was part of Alexander’s political legacy to the Hellenistic world. His vision of empire no doubt inspired the Romans, who were, of course, the real heirs of Alexander’s legacy.

But Alexander also left a cultural legacy, as a result of his conquest, Greek language, art, architecture, and literature spread throughout the Middle East. The urban centers of the Hellenistic ages many founded by Alexander and his successors, became springboards for the diffusion of Greek culture. While the Greeks spread their culture in the east, they were also inevitably influenced by eastern ways. Thus, Alexander’s legacy created one of the basic characteristics of the Hellenistic world: the clash and fusion of different cultures.

The World of the Hellenistic Kingdoms

The united empire that Alexander created by his conquests disintegrated soon after his death. All too soon, the most important Macedonian generals were engaged in a struggle for power. By 300 B.C.E., and hope of unity was dead, and eventually four Hellenistic kingdoms emerged as the successors to Alexander: Macedonia under the Antigonid dynasty, Syria and the east under the Seleucids, the Attalid kingdom of Pergamum in western Asia Minor, and Egypt under Ptolemies. All were eventually conquered by the Romans.

The Hellenistic monarchies created a semblance of stability for several centuries, even though Hellenistic kings refused to accept the new status quo and periodically engaged in wars to alter it. At the same time, an underlying strain always existed between the new Greco-Macedonian ruling class and the native populations. Together these factors created a certain degree of tension that was never truly ended until the vibrant Roman state to the west stepped in and imposed a new order.

Although Alexander the Great apparently planned to fuse Greeks and easterners- he used Persians as administrators, encouraged his soldiers to marry easterners, and did so himself- Hellenistic monarchs relied primarily on Greeks and Macedonians to form the new ruling class. It has been estimated that in the Seleucid kingdom, for example, only 2.5 percent of the people in authority were non-Greek, and most of them were commanders of local military units. Those who did advance to important administrative posts had learned Greek (all government business was transacted in Greek) and had become Hellenized in a cultural sense. The policy of excluding non-Greeks from leadership positions, it should be added, was not due to the incompetence of the natives, but to the determination of the Greek ruling class to maintain its privileged position. It was the Greco-Macedonian ruling class that provided the only unity in the Hellenistic world.

Since the Hellenizing process was largely an urban phenomenon, the creation of New Greek cities is an especially important topic. In his conquests, Alexander had founded a series of new cities and military settlements, and Hellenistic kings did likewise. The new population centers varied considerably in size and importance. Military settlements were meant to maintain order and might consist of only a few hundred men strongly dependent on the king. But there were also new independent cities with thousands of inhabitants. Alexandria in Egypt was the largest city in the Mediterranean region by the first century B.C.E.

Hellenistic rulers encouraged this massive spread of Greek colonists to the Middle East because of this intrinsic value to the new monarchies. Greeks (and Macedonians) provided not only a recruiting ground for the army, but also a pool of civilian administrators and workers who would contribute to economic development. Even architects, engineers, dramatists, and actors were in demand in the New Greek cities. Many Greeks and Macedonians were quick to see the advantages of moving to the new urban centers and gladly sought their fortunes in the Middle East. The Greek city states of the Hellenistic era were chief agents in the spread of Greek culture in the middle east- as far, in fact, as modern Afghanistan and India.

Economic and Social Trends

Agriculture was still of primary importance to both the native populations and the New Greek cities oh the Hellenistic world. The Greek cities continued their old agrarian patters. A well-defined citizen body owned land and worked it with the assistance of slaves. But their farms were isolated units in a vast area of land ultimately owned by the kind or assigned to large estate owners and worked by native peasants dwelling in villages. Overall, then, neither agricultural patterns nor methods of production underwent significant changes.

Commerce experienced considerable expansion in the Hellenistic era. Indeed, trading contacts linked much of the Hellenistic world together. The decline in the number of political barriers encouraged more commercial traffic. Although Hellenistic monarchs still fought wars, the conquests of Alexander and the policies of his successors made possible greater trade between east and wet. An incredible variety of products were traded: gold and silver from Spain; salt from Asia Minor; timber from Macedonia; ebony, gems, ivory, and spices from India; frankincense (used on altars) from Arabia; slaves from Thrace,  Syria, and Asia Minor; olive oil from Athens; and numerous exquisite foodstuffs, such as the famous prunes of Damascus. The greatest trade, however, was in the basic staple of life- grain.

One of the more noticeable features of social life in the Hellenistic world was the emergence of new opportunities for women- at least, for upper-class women- especially in the economic area. Documents show increasing numbers of women involved in managing slaves, selling property, and making loans. Even then, legal contracts in which women were involved had to include their official male guardians, although in numerous instances these men no longer played an important function but were only married to satisfy legal requirements. Only in Sparta were women free to control their own economic affairs. Many Spartan women were noticeably wealthy; females owned 40 percent of Spartan land.

Spartan women, however, were an exception especially on the Greek mainland, for example, still remained highly restricted and supervised. Although a few philosophers welcomed female participation in men’s affairs, many philosophers rejected equality between men and women and asserted that the traditional roles of wives and mothers were most satisfying for women.

But the opinions of philosophers did not prevent upper-class women from making gains in areas other than the economic sphere (see box on 120). New possibilities for females arose when women in some areas of the Hellenistic world were allowed to pursue education in the traditional fields of literature, music, and even athletics. Education, then, provided new opportunities for women: female poets appeared in the third century, and there are instances of women involved in both scholarly and artistic activities.

The creation of the Hellenistic monarchies, which represented a considerable departure from the world of the city-state, also gave new scope to the role played by the monarchs’ wives, the Hellenistic queens. In Macedonia, a pattern of alliances between mothers and sons provided openings for women to take an active role in politics, especially in political intrigue. In Egypt, opportunities for royal women were even greater because the Ptolemaic rulers, four wed their sisters. Ptolemy II and his sister-wife Arsinoe II were both worshipped as gods in their lifetimes. Arsinoe played an energetic role of the Egyptian navy. She was also the first Egyptian queen whose portrait appeared on coins with her husband. Hellenistic queens also showed an intense interest in culture. They wrote poems, collected art, and corresponded with intellectuals.