All  
Mosaic depicting Alexander the Great fighting Darius III of Persia

Alexander the Great: Was he a Unifier or a Subjugator?

Print

Interpreted by many historians as proof of a vision for the unison of man, much of Alexander’s dealings in Persia have come to be attributed with a policy of racial fusion. Accordingly, echoed in numerous sources is an idealistic image of Alexander as a Christ-like humanitarian destined to be the saviour and unifier of mankind, while the Alexander whose entire existence orbited strategy and bloodshed is often outshone by this romantic ideal. According to classical scholar Ernst Badian, the Alexander who dreamt of a unity of mankind is nothing but an illusory figure concocted in the mind of scholar Sir William Tarn who conceived Alexander as an agent of the brotherhood of man, and I equally doubt that Alexander was ever inspired by some philanthropic desire to federate humanity. In light of Alexander’s ‘Great’ reputation, I believe his actions which have so frequently been mistaken as racial unity were instead glorified after his death, and in such a way that Alexander was creatively redecorated as a messiah of the ancient world. Thus I suspect that Alexander was not the champion of equality that many would like to believe, but instead a subjugator of men who was far too driven by a pompous faith in his own destiny to be exclusively concerned with such fruitless matters as racial fusion.

Several pivotal occurrences of Alexander’s short career have frequently been judged as confirmation of his so called visionary policy of racial fusion. Alexander’s matrimonies to Persian aristocrats and the mass marriages he coordinated at Susa are commonly represented as symbolic of this strategy. In book seven of the Anabasis of Alexander , Arrian recounts Alexander’s marriage to Barsine the eldest daughter of the Persian king Darius, while a second marriage to Parysatis, daughter of the murdered Persian King Ochus is also postulated. These marriages were not however romantic attempts by Alexander to unify Persian and Macedonian culture. Instead I believe they were one sided business arrangements organized exclusively for the benefit they endowed; namely Alexander’s legitimate share in the Persian Empire.

A mural in Pompeii depicting the marriage of Alexander the Great to Barsine

A mural in Pompeii depicting the marriage of Alexander the Great to Barsine (Stateira) in 324 BC. ( Wikipedia)

Alexander’s union with Barsine was vital to his suppression of Persia, by marrying the daughter of the vanquished leader Alexander was simply validating his conquest and his claim to rule. The mass marriages at Susa in 324 BC, where Alexander’s officers were joined in matrimony to Persian noblewomen also in my opinion did not signify ritualistic egalitarianism. These nuptials were purely political and symptomatic of nothing more than Macedonian dominance and assertion of power. The mass marriages were entirely between conquering men and conquered women, hence clearly not some convoluted attempt to symbolically fuse two cultures. In fact conversely, Alexander was quite literally and ingeniously contaminating Persian pedigree with Macedonian blood, thereby extinguishing the old ruling class and safeguarding himself against untainted Persian contest in the future.

Alexander The Great Celebrates and Mass Marriage In Susa, Persia

Alexander The Great Celebrates and Mass Marriage In Susa, Persia. By Tom Lovell (1909 – 1997). ( American gallery )

Following the orchestrated marriages at Susa, Alexander commenced to integrate outsiders into his Macedonian army, specifically some 30,000 Persian youth. This military assimilation of non-Macedonians is a gesture commonly embraced as proof of Alexander’s attempts at racial fusion; however I believe a more logical explanation exists. Alexander’s recruitment of non-Macedonian infantry was a practical necessity and a viable solution to the dwindling manpower of an army relentlessly campaigning. The number of reinforcements available to Alexander was strained, and with his own Macedonian soldiers prone to disaffection, the recruitment of outsiders was simply a means of correcting the scarcity. The fact that Alexander ordered the 30,000 Persians to be trained exclusively in Macedonian tactic further neutralizes any theory of racial fusion, and instead implies that Alexander anticipated the permanence of Macedonian supremacy.

Alexander’s adoption of Persian dress and his implementation of Persian court protocol are further matters extensively debated as corroboration of racial synthesis. In 330 Alexander began to sport elements of Persian dress; namely the diadem, the striped tunic and the girdle, while he simultaneously initiated Persian officials into his court. These endorsements of Persian institutions were however nothing akin to racial fusion and this is particularly apparent when considering the timing of these adoptions. Alexander’s interest in Persian conduct did not arise until six weeks after Darius had died, and this sixth week marked considerable instability for Alexander as his throne was contested by Darius’ brother Bessus. Alexander’s adoption of Persian comportment was without doubt a means of asserting himself as king of kings, and for that matter a king that was superficially authentic. Persian clothing was exhibited by Alexander purely to pacify the native people and to secure their allegiance, while his integration of Persian officials was equally as strategic, serving to portray Alexander as a fair and tolerant leader. In effect, Alexander was simply dressing and behaving as only a Persian king would, since failure to do so would have greatly undermined his rule.

Alexander began to wear the striped tunic, girdle and diadem of Persian royal dress

Realizing that the best way to maintain control of the Persians was to act like one, Alexander began to wear the striped tunic, girdle and diadem of Persian royal dress—to the dismay of cultural purists back in Macedonia. ( history.com)

In 327 Alexander attempted to introduce the Persian practice of proskynesis into his Macedonia court, an effort that has widely been employed as proof of the racial fusion theory. Proskynesis, the custom of prostration, was a form of Persian tribute that denoted the King’s superiority, however in Greek and Macedonian culture it implied divinity, and because of this Alexander’s men strongly ostracized its proposal, seeing it as an inappropriate means of addressing a mortal ruler. In view of the fact that proskynesis held uniquely different meaning across the cultures, I consider it highly unlikely that its proposed introduction was in any way aimed at racial fusion or equality, but instead, and more convincingly, an elaborate demand for divine recognition and acknowledgement as absolute ruler. Thus, Alexander proposed proskynesis simply because it was a fresh way in which he could obtain worship. The practice was accompanied by superhuman recognition, and for a man with an overwhelming belief in his own divinity, it is likely that Alexander was purely awestruck with the idolization it would bestow.

Original relief of the northern stairs of the Apadana at Persepolis

Alexander introduced the Persian practice of proskynesis into his Macedonia court. Original relief of the northern stairs of the Apadana at Persepolis (National Archaeological Museum, Tehran)

In my opinion it is doubtful that Alexander ever conceived to unite mankind, and a genuine policy of racial fusion is improbable. In fact such a theory does not emerge until after Alexander’s death, and it is here that truth has likely been eclipsed by the thick veil of legend, as so often is the case. Simply put, Alexander was a man motivated by an unyielding determination to conquer the entire world, and if dabbling in foreign customs or donning exotic garments would edge him nearer to that goal, Alexander the eternal tactician would not have thought twice about doing so. Alexander cleverly intercalated himself into Persian culture thereby substantiating his legitimacy to the throne, and any steps that may have implied racial fusion were pure ruses masking practical and political objectives. I believe there has been a certain confusion of Alexander’s racial motivations, and it is nonsensical to assume that a man with such an engulfing lust for power could have equally been a righteous saviour or consolidator of man.

Featured image: Mosaic depicting Alexander the Great fighting Darius III of Persia ( Wikipedia)

Primary Sources

Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander , Book VII

Secondary Sources

Badian, Ernst. Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind , Historia 7(4), 1958

Bosworth, A.B, Baynham, Elizabeth. Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002

Green, P. Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 BC: A Historical Biography , California: University of California Press, 1970

Heckel, W. The Conquests of Alexander the Great , New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012

Roisman, Joseph, Worthington, Ian. A Companion to Ancient Macedonia , United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

Thomas, C.G. Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind , The Classical Journal 63(6), 1968.

Worthington, Ian. Alexander the Great: A Reader , London: Routledge, 2003.

By Ashlee McCabe

Comments

Ashlee McCabe's picture

I did not intend to imply that Greek and Macedonian were two different cultures, I actually use the word 'culture' not 'cultures'. I was simply stating that to Greek and Macedonians, proskynesis held a different meaning to the one it held in Persian culture. Thus when I suggest it held different meaning across the 'cultures' plural, I mean Persian culture and Greek culture.

Macedonia was known as a kingdom and their rise to power put an end to the classical age of the Greek City States.

Ha. "Mongol"slavia... Greece was relevant a few millennia ago, but for some reason, its population can't seem to leave its period of antiquity. You guys do have some pretty sweet ruins, however.

Oh you poor thing, the latest discovery in Amphipolis mus be hitting you and your people hard, must suck to be you right now. I suggest you start accepting the historical facts. Your country has suffered needlessly(Rejected from NATO) due to your attempted identity theft of Greek history. I suggest you start concentrating on your own population; you know, the 33% that wants to join a greater Albania. Embrace your Mongol/Central Asian/Slavic ancestry in your landlocked Mongolslavia. Hellenic means Greek and Hellenism is Greek, the official name of Greece is The Hellenic Republic. Macedonia is a greek word that mean "Highlander".The only modern construct of a nation is yours when communist dictator Tito had territorial ambitions against Greece which is why he named the southern province of Yugosavia 'Macedonia". Those Turkish christians as you call them were Greeks who came over during the population exchange with Greece after the humiliating defeat of the Ottoman Empire after WW1. See Ottoman rum millet system of government to further educate yourself. Macedon was a Greek kingdom, 99.9% of all historians agree with that without question. All archaeological evidence supports the fact that Macedon was a greek kingdom whose people spoke Greek, wrote Greek, worshipped Greek gods ,were educated in Greek schools, fought in Greek armies and after the Alexandrian campaign found Greek successor kingdoms(Egypt and the Ptolemies, Seleucids and Seleucus, Bactrian kingdom,etc. You may not have bananas in Mongolslavia but your all bananas

Macedonia was not a Greek Kingdom, it was a Hellenistic Kingdom (it adopted Hellenic culture).
Greece is a state created by King Otto the Philhellene of Germany in the 1800's. The national myth created to mold all of the ethnicities into "Greeks" was ancient Greece.

Macedonia for the first time was incorporated into a Greek state in 1913, after which the Macedonians where massacred and driven out and Turkish Christians where re-settled to take their place.

Please do not insult the Macedonian people by calling Macedonia Greek. Macedonia is Macedonian, Greece is Greek.

Pages

Next article