Articles

• 1. Are Greeks proud of Alexander the Great?
• 2. How could Macedonia, as a peripheral Greek kingdom, unite Greeks and conquer the Persian Empire?

1. Are Greeks proud of Alexander the Great?

Well, this question is an interesting one to me. I remember I was talking with an Indian guy (from Singapore) years ago, while we were both abroad. At some point in our discussion he told me a story (at least known to some Indians) regarding Alexander the Great asking from an Indian priest to tell him the secrets of the Indian wisdom while threatening him with a sword… Then the wise Indian said something like that “if you will use the sword on me, my head will fall down…” Then the Singaporean thought something like that “Alexander was a “butcher” like Cenghis Khan”… But, after I told him “he did not kill the priest, did he?”, the Singaropean remained silent…

Are you confused so far? I guess the answer itself is a bit “confused” in the sense that Greeks have, or should have, somewhat mixed feelings about Alexander and its time. In other words, perhaps Alexander was more like a “doctor” in some sense, and not a “butcher”… In Greek, there is the say/expression “necessary evil”, and this is used when someone has to do something unpleasant, like when a doctor has to amputate a patient, but also in other similar/comparable occasions…

To carry on, Alexander was a warrior who invaded other countries. Thus, I assume, most Greeks would feel more straightforwardly proud about other Greek figures of the past, like some philosophers (eg Plato, Socrates, Aristotle) or politicians, inventors etc. That is also because most Greeks are naturally not very much acquainted with military issues, as most are average citizens, and because we have suffered a lot by foreign invasions... But the reality is that, for philosophy, arts and science (etc) to take place, there must be a protected environment, and therefore the army is a necessary precondition...

So what about Alexander as a military leader? To begin with, Greeks were always respectful of other peoples and they celebrated diversity, which, by the way, might be the best lesson we can take from the ancient Greeks in our times. One can see some manifestation of this in the relationship between the ancient Greeks and the Egyptians, where the Greeks would send ambassadors to take the advice of the wise individuals of Egypt, after having been also consulted by the oracles of Greece about the same issue. Then why would Alexander want to invade Egypt? The answer here would be that Egypt, like other places, was under the occupation of the Persians, and the Persians were the number-one, constant threat against the Greeks. Much of the Persian threats has been also popularized in our days through movies (see “300”, etc), and if one checks the dates a bit, he would easily assume that Aristotle (after he returned from Plato’s Academy to the north of Greece and started teaching Alexander) also told to Alexander a great deal about the Persian threat...

As a result, given that the Persians were an actual threat to the Greeks, the offensive campaign against them would be seen as a “preemptive attack”, notwithstanding that some “Persia-friendly” Athenian politician(s) would rather pledge towards forming some sort of alliance with the Persians instead of joining Alexander. Then again, what about the peoples of the places Alexander conquered? Should not he take them and their welfare into consideration, as one might reasonably ask? The short answer would be that -yes- he did... Accordingly, this is an extra reason for me to be proud of him.

More analytically, Alexander is still well-known to the places he conquered, where he is rather received in a positive light, as he could overall be seen as a liberator back then, especially when contrasted to the Persian regime where the Persian king would consider himself a god, while Alexander on the other hand would ask his soldiers whether they wanted to campaign with him, and he would also enter the battle himself. Even the Muslim religion mentions Alexander as a great figure. And even though there is a trend by some contemporary Muslims to consider that it is not certain who the Dhul-Qarnayn of the Koran actually was, the majority does not exclude Alexander the Great…

Also, after Alexander died, the people that administered the areas he conquered would not purport to erase the culture of the respective peoples, and that is indicative of the nature of the Greek occupation in those places. For example Cleopatra would be a Pharaoh, not a queen.. Moreover, in the areas around India one can find Greek-style statues of Buddha (etc)… Similarly, the depictions on ancient Greek coins from this region would include elephants…

So I am generally proud of Alexander the Great as, even thought he was entangled with the intrinsic bitterness of a military fight, he left an overall positive mark and imprint to the places and the peoples he conquered. But if his campaign was not necessary, or if he had treated the places/peoples he conquered in a worse way than the one they we treated in before his arrival, I would then not be proud..

go to top

2. How could Macedonia, as a peripheral Greek kingdom, unite Greeks and conquer the Persian Empire?

In a nutshell;

The Persians were a constant threat against the Greeks in those days (eg see the 300 Spartans and other fights/wars of that time). Alexander conquered SOLELY the areas that were already conquered by the Persians. Also Macedonia was already once conquered by the Persians before Alexander the Great’s time.

The Macedonians were a more recent Greek tribe that came from Peloponnese (in the south) to the north in order to, among others, defend the Greek borders and some important Proto-Greek sites/areas like the Dodona oracle, mount Olympus and others. Herodotus states; 

"From Argos fled to the Illyrians three brothers of the descendants of Temenus, Gauanes, Aeropus, and Perdiccas; and passing over from the Illyrians into the upper parts of Macedonia they came to the city of Lebaia."

You can see this also in the names of later Macedonian kings; “Amyntas” comes from the Greek word for “defense”, also “Alexandros” means the “defender from/”neutralizer” of men” and "Philippos" means “friend of horses”… Of course you may find these names elsewhere in Greece, but they mostly occurred in Macedonia. Note that there were Greeks all around the Mediterranean sea by that time; notably Byzantium, Massalia, Pontus (Black Sea) and others… But the Macedonians, in a sense, “returned” to the area of Macedonia, as the Macedonians (who claimed they come from Heracles/Hercules) were Dorians, and, as a result, roughly the north of Greece was their historical homeland/place of origin.

Now about “conquering the rest of Greece”, Macedonia more likely united the Greeks against the Persians. The truth is that some Greek politicians (mainly in southern Greece) did not favour so much the Macedonians for political reasons. But there were poets, politicians (etc) in numerous Greek cities (including southern Greece) who at the time of Alexander the Great, or before that, favoured and praised the Macedonians, many of whom were treated in their turn more favourably than other persons of the respective cities after Alexander the Great took control of Greece.

But I find that the biggest political divide between Greeks would be that of the Peloponnesian War (ie roughly between Ionian Greeks and Dorian Greeks) a few decades earlier, and not that between north Greece/Macedon and south Greece.. But the relationship of some Greeks with the Persians played important role even during the Peloponnesian war or even before that. Pausanias, a Spartan general, was sentenced to death because of alleged collaboration with the Persians before the Peloponessian war. Also Persia helped Sparta (ie the Dorians) during the Peloponessian war.

Later, the Spartans notably did not take part in Alexander’s campaign. Nevertheless, after the Battle of Granicus River near Troy, Alexander symbolically sent 300 Persian shields (as many as the Spartans in the battle of Thermopylae against the Persians) to be hung on Parthenon in Athens, also stating according to Arrian; 

"Alexander, son of Philip and all the Greeks except the Lacedaemonians (Spartans), present this offering from the spoils taken from the barbarians inhabiting Asia".

Now, about “why the Macedonians and not any other Greek tribe?”;

Alexander had more interests and competence to lead the campaign against Persia than other Greeks. For instance, if the Persians would come to Greece, they would rather favour some southern Greeks (in case they would favour any Greeks, as favouring others was not their style) and they would not respect much the Macedonians, as they would also come through Macedonia (ie the north) first... Also the Macedonians had warfare with their neighboring peoples (some Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, and occasionally some other Greeks), so that this way Alexander would make these peoples allies against Persia instead… Plus, he was used to fighting against “barbaric” peoples (different style of fighting to the one against other Greeks, while the southern Greeks usually fought against each other) and this is possibly/probably why Macedonia was not a traditional city-state in the way it was organized, as it was spread into towns governed by a King as the central authority… And the Macedonians, unlike most other Greeks, had already tasted the bitterness of being occupied by Persia, during the first and second Persian invasions..

After all, when one needs help for electric work in his/her home asks for an electrician, when about legal advice s/he asks for a lawyer etc. Similarly for protecting your country you need an “Amyntas” or “Alex-andros” or “Phil-ippos”. By this I mean that Greeks -as one can easily find this fact in history- were all about fame-after-death (ie the so called “hysterophemia”), and they were also ready to die in a glorious fight. And the Macedonians who did not make many artistic or scientific contributions to Greece felt that they were ready to live up to their name(s) and, as if this was their domain of specialty, to accordingly drive away the invaders and exterminate the threat, as this -again- seems to have been the main purpose/role of the founding of the Kingdom of Macedon in the first place… Other than that (ie in self-defense), I do not find that it was especially complimentary among the Greeks to conquer other[s’] places by military force, as the Greeks up to this point had mostly [quite peacefully] made colonies or trading centres (eg in Thrace, Magna Graecia, or Massalia, Pontus and others) without occupying foreign peoples.

go to top