On the Legacy of Alexander
“History belongs in the past, but the understanding of it is the duty of the Present”
- Shashi Tharoor
The world we live in – it is one that is permeated by innumerable axioms, verities, aphorisms, and realities; and perhaps one of the most quintessential of these axioms has been the impact that our collective history has had on not only our present reality, but upon the wider human condition altogether. When one reflects upon the annals of history, and the storied legacy of our collective, civilizational past – innumerable names of individuals can come to mind, all of whom have characterized their times, who have left their mark: positive or negative, beneficial or detrimental, reverberating through the ages, still continuing to define the present day. Whether it be conquerors like Genghis Khan or Augustus Caesar, statesmen like Cato and Cicero, inventors like Edison or Tesla, or philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, it is fundamentally axiomatic when striving to understand our past, to understand the various individuals who shaped it. For this art, of remembering and structuring history – that of historiography – is arguably as influential and storied as the history it attempts to gauge. For as long as there has been recorded history, there has been the romanticization or despotization thereof. Whether it be in writing, narrative, poetry, art, rhetoric, or even musical ballads, history is as much about the manner in which it is delivered as the actual events themselves – in the hands of the chronicler as much as it is in the hands of the heroes of old. However, there are few whose names have echoed further throughout the centuries, whose legacy stands taller, whose legacy epitomizes these truths greater than Alexander the Great. For when analyzing the course of Ancient History, Alexander’s exploits, are a must. Whether it be his own unique worldview and vision for the future, which potentially place him alongside Cyrus the Great as the first globalists. Or his unique managerial capabilities, forming the largest empire in all of antiquity in the span of little more than a decade – or his tragic demise which was followed shortly thereafter by the collapse of his empire – and it is only natural that such a towering figure, an archetype of antiquity, to shape both history and historiography for millennia. For when observing the nature of the rise, fall, and preservation of countless empires throughout the millennia since the days of Gaugamela, a great many of their leaders have attempted to walk in Alexander’s footsteps, using his meteoric rise as an exemplar, and his dramatic fall as a harbinger.
The legends Alexander lived through and inspired have amalgamated throughout the ages into what was commonly known as the Alexander Romance, an almost mythicized version of Alexander’s intrepid exploits including everything from his bona fide conquest of Persia to conquering the Sea and Sky, and in certain versions, foreshadowing the prophets of both Christianity and Islam in his near archetypal legends and projections. As a matter of fact, the Romance was the most publicized and widespread piece of literature the world over for millennia excluding holy books, and was second only to the Bible and maybe the Quran in publication in the pre-industrial world. Moreover, as a matter of personal experience, I can reminisce back upon my childhood, first becoming immersed in history learning of the greats. I remember as a very young child, before much else, having nascent knowledge and recollections surrounding a couple of Presidents besides the incumbent, and a couple Founding Fathers (Washington, Frankin, Lincoln, Obama), a few biblical figures from Abrahamic texts (Christ, Moses, Daniel), and Alexander – an Ancient King who ruled for a little more than a decade, and whose empire fragmented into dozens of rival fiefdoms and factions immediately after his death. And yet, despite all of this – Alexander being one of history’s immortal names – much of his identity and legacy are still the subject of immense controversy and scholarly division. This particular veracity is held evident when observing the region of his origin where the Ancient Kingdom of Macedon once presided – where today two Republics find themselves engaged in a bitter feud over to whom does Antiquities’ greatest conqueror hail.
For the territory of the Ancient Macedonian heartland resides primarily in Northern Greece, with certain swathes of land overlapping into North Macedonia, both venerating Alexander as among their nation’s greatest forefathers. However, the reality behind this debate is one that ought to be understood as highly multifaceted, and one which the resolution thereof is a near Sisyphean task, and one that has not only dominated modern historiographical discourse, but contemporary discourse in Alexander’s own time, regarding the identity of their nation, for the old Macedonian capitals of Pella (the birthplace of both Alexander and his father Philip II), and Aigai (Modern Vergina, where the tombs of most Macedonian royals are located, and where Philip II held his notorious ceremonies and triumph’s before his demise in 336 BCE), reside in Greece proper, while other northern territories rely in Macedonia (whose namesake derives from Old Macedon, despite a lack of ethnic congruity between the two).
However the dispute, not only the legacy of Alexander but the legacy of ancient Macedon, the first kingdom to unify the Greeks under one flag before leading them to cultural hegemony over the known world, has defined not only scholarly discourse, but legal, political disputes for decades, since the breakup of Yugoslavia and the formation of North Macedonia (whose namesake including the word ‘North’ derives from an international legal dispute which was resolved by the United Nations, spearheaded by both nation’s sentimental leaders). Moreover, not only was this dispute the subject of modern controversy but in the age of Alexander as well, for the debate over whether Alexander and his dynasty – the Argeads – were Greek, Barbarian (in a classical sense, defined as anybody who was not Greek), or some fusion between the two spanned centuries, and involved some of the greatest minds of the Ancient World. Thus, it would not only be an enthralling historical thought exercise to attempt to if not resolve, then elucidate the facts of this antediluvian controversy in order to not only greater understand history, but to more effectively compromise and progress with a sound understanding of the wisdom of the ages.
Today, we shall be analyzing and immersing ourselves within a particular aspect of this dispute, the ethnic/cultural identity of both Alexander, his father Philip, and the wider Argead Dynasty which ruled the Kingdom of Macedon in modern-day Northern Greece for centuries, before history’s most memorable father-son duo took the Ancient World by Storm. Although some may contend that Alexander and his fellow Argeads were Greek, meanwhile others are vehement (particularly certain sedentary contemporaries of Alexander) in arguing his ancestry lies in barbarism and a distinctly non-Hellenic origin – it is with utmost alacrity that I bring forth the contention that the Argead Dynasty, the house of Alexander, was neither explicitly Greek, nor Barbarian – and one whose legacy lies in a synthesis and a proverbial concert of nations. Rather, his lineage was one of ethno-cultural syncretism, a fusion between Greek, Epicurean, Barbarian (barbarian in a classical sense as non-Greeks, with particular illusions to tribal kingdoms north of Greece, Illyria, Thrace, etc.), and a unique Macedonian identity distinct from the modern nation-state and vivified by a storied past.
First and foremost, when attempting to understand ancient history and the study thereof, it is imperative to consult the father of history himself – perhaps the most notorious, venerable historian of all time, and one of my preferred historical starting points; Herodotus of Halicarnassus, for he notably acknowledged a nuanced viewpoint surrounding the Macedonian people and the Argead dynasty, which for our sake can be understood as pseudo-Greek; acknowledging their own definition of themselves as Greek, while referring to and alluding to them as Philhellene, or apart of the Greater Greek World, but not necessarily Greek in the sense that Athens and Sparta were ‘Greek’. In other words, not being entirely Greek – a melting pot of Dorian, Aeolian, Barbarian, and Macedonian identity – and in the eyes of some Attic supremacists being insufficiently Greek, but being Greek enough to belong in what I call the Hellenosphere of greater Greek civilization and having a combination of both a Greek identity, the impact of surrounding regions, and a distinctly Macedonian identity; shaped through the centuries and verified below.
With regards to the modern discourse surrounding Alexander the Great however, few voices hold greater scholastic weight and loftiness in the field than Sir Robin Lane Fox, whose several books upon Alexander and courses published primarily with but not limited to the Oxford University Press are near ubiquitously respected amongst the historian community (and whose book the Search for Alexander was perhaps the first truly in-depth analysis of Alexander’s life that I ever read as a very young adolescent, and one that characterized the way I perceive the past). Within this book in particular, he addresses the ethno-cultural identity of Alexander as a complex subject, and he contrasts various perspectives from historians and pamphleteers such as Callisthenes and Theopompus (who believed Alexander to be explicitly Greek and Non-Greek respectively), and the history of the Argead’s to assert a uniquely Macedonian identity which had developed throughout the centuries, calling both to an overarching Hellenic heritage and a unique cultural history and regional identity shaped throughout the early centuries of Argead rule and cementing itself in the Macedonian Court Culture which reached its zenith under Philip II.
Beyond the scholarly heavyweights, there is another, far more logistical approach when understanding the Argead Dynasty, that being their genetic makeup, held evident through their family lineage. For the Argeads, who ruled Ancient Macedon from its legendary foundation up until the Diadochi, perhaps the most common origin story for the dynasty is the semi-legendary journey of either Caranus or Perdicass I from the city of Argos in Southern Greece, to the land of Macedon on the frontier of the Greek world – thus establishing them in this legend as explicitly Greek with a lineage dating back to the legendary archetypes of the Trojan War and furthermore to Heracles himself. However, although such an origin story ought to be taken with a grain of salt (like most dynastic origin stories throughout history, but especially near the end of the Greek Dark Ages, in which technology and transportation was at a nadir), but even if one is to accept the theory with the initial heritage being Dorian Greek, when looking at the Argead family tree a fusion of identities can be safely understood. Firstly, when observing the three historically verified mothers of Argead Kings prior to Alexander, all three (Symache Cleopatra, married to Perdicass II, Eurydice I, married to Amyntas III, and Olympias, married to Philip II), can be understood as either a fusion between Greek and Barbarian, or explicitly Non-Greek – with the name Symache dating back to Thracian/Dacian origin (combined with the Dorian Cleopatra, likely indicating either Thracian origin or an origin from a Black Sea Colony), Eurydice I being partially Illyrian, and Olympias originating from the Molossian Tribe of Epirus (which will be addressed later, but for our purposes can be understood as Partially Greek, with a Northwestern Dorian focus) – thus facilitating an ethnic makeup of later kings as a combination of both Greek and Non-Greek backgrounds. Furthermore, it can be safely assumed that most of the earlier Argead wives and mothers, due to the smaller and relatively insignificant nature of early Macedon, were local noblewomen who probably hailed from distinctly Macedonian houses and clans – thereby establishing a distinct Macedonian yet multifaceted and quasi-Greek genetic makeup of the Argead dynasty, with or without the origin story.
With regards to the linguistic nature of the Macedonian Court, several scholarly studies on the matter, such as Sturz 1808, Joseph 2001, Gruyter 2003, Brixhe & Co. 2018, and Hatzopoulos 2020 identify a Macedonian Greek language as a distinct adaptation of Northwest Dorian Greek with Aeolic (Thessalonian), and elements of regional originalities, alongside slight Thracian and Paeonian influence are listed below, establishing similarities and differences between the more common Attic Greek and Central Dorian Greek dialects spoken by most ‘true’ Hellenes. Within the numerous aforementioned sources, a recurring theme is elucidated regarding the Macedonian dialect’s distinct nature when compared to various other Greek dialects (commonplace amongst archaic era Greece prior to the Hellenistic Era) – particularly emphasizing a uniquely Macedonian Greek dialect, with elements of Northwest Dorian (near region’s of Epirus – a neighbor of Macedonia), Aeolian (northern portions of Thessaly – a neighbor and close counterpart of Macedonia, with regions of Aeolia overlapping with Macedon), and distinct Macedonian linguistic elements, which likely evolved within the hills and valleys of Macedon throughout the centuries, being either always utilized or later adopted by the Argead Dynasty – and as we all know the language of a people or family is a quintessential axiom of their identity.
Pertaining to the Ethnic Identity of the Macedonians, it can be understood that like many of their neighbors, they were somewhat Greek – or as Herodotus put it – Philhellene. However we can observe and internalize the particular identity of the Macedonians as somewhat connected to but still distinct from the Dorian Tribes who eventually settled and inhabited Central and Southern Greece – as held especially evident within the works of Eugene Borza, a fascinating, leading Ethno-Linguist and historian specializing in the region, being akin to yet separate from them, and originating from a northwestern region, which would have either originally or gradually become the ethnic identity of the Aregad Dynasty, thus being truly what Herodotus liturgized to be Philhellene.
On another note, Olympias of Epirus – who was the fifth wife of Philip II, and the highly influential mother of Alexander the Great (who would have been infuriated to have ever been referred to as Alexander III), was notably as her eponym implies a daughter of Epirus, and as a member of the Molossian Tribe had a distinct ethnic identity as somewhat Northwest Dorian while being somewhat more tribalist and even perceived by some (especially in Attica) as barbarian, yet in my opinion can best be understood as explicated above to be yet another quasi-Greek, and although she would definitely if understood in this light establish Alexander as a fusion between Ethnic identities, would raise another equally contentious discussion surrounding the ethnic and cultural identity surrounding the Kingdom and People of Epirus.
Yet another factor surrounding the Argead identity is the result of Macedon having been a frontier state for centuries, and therefore having a diverse ethnic composition by Ancient standards. Returning to the works of Borza, not only can the ethnic composition of both the Argeads and the wider Macedonian people be understood, but the veracity of Macedonian ethnic evolution is also addressed and is thus worth its own point of discussion. That being, as a frontier state separating Classical Greece and the so-called Barbarian peoples, including but not limited to Thrace, Paeonia, Illyria, Dacia, and for a time Persia, Macedonia would have been no stranger to some miscegenation between various groups, and this feature would have over the centuries, even if marginally so – characterized the Macedonian people and royal family as a fusion between Greek and Non-Greek identities (a concept addressed eloquently by Borza), with this miscegenation having even reached the Argead Dynasty, with Perdicass’ II’s own sister being married to a Persian administrator, and their son holding minor administrative titles as well, thus qualifying as a branch of the dynasty although marginal, which most likely would not have been an anomaly, as yet another factor supporting the concept of Argead fusion.
Not only is there a considerable amount of scholarly controversy surrounding Ancient Macedon, but there is a modern ethnic dispute pertaining to the heritage of two South Balkan nations; the modern nation of Greece and North Macedonia. Although the territorial integrity of early Macedon existed almost entirely in the nation of Greece, most ethnic maps of Archaic Greece demonstrate an ethnic difference between Southern “bona fide” Greeks and the Northern plains people, however the one overarching difference between Ancient Macedonia’s ethnic composition and modern Macedonia is that the modern nation-state is predominantly South Slavic and Bulgarian, yet both groups still most likely resided on the Eurasian Steppe near the Ural Mountains during Classical Antiquity, thus eradicating nearly all ethnic connections between the two – yet still raising a noteworthy contention that highlights the unique nature of Ethnic Macedonians; despite the steadfast efforts of the Macedonian government and the VMRO (the nationalistic ruling party of North Macedonia) to draw similarities in a process called antiquization. Regarding antiquization I must say that although being a tempting, appealing, and to some degree venerable tendency when remembering ones’ past, it is important to analyze it with a degree of skepticism pertaining to the often romantic, even quixotic nature of the practice, making sure to balance antiquization with other schools of historic thought and remembrance.
However, despite the apparent myriad of sources and articles of evidence that elucidate the multifaceted nature of Alexander’s identity, there is a definite abundance of sources that would contend otherwise, either for ideological or other reasons. Perhaps one of the most infamous first-hand sources of the life of Alexander – Callisthenes, who was the court historian for Alexander throughout his reign and conquests until his tragic demise due to what can euphemistically be described as creative disagreements between himself and Alexander regarding divine providence or lack thereof. That being said, Callisthenes did repeatedly establish Alexander as an explicitly Greek King, and as the leader of the Greek people in the campaign against Persia, as specifically depicted when describing his birth, his ascension to the throne, and other elements of his life which have managed to be preserved through the biographical analysis and second-hand observations of Arrian – yet it is worth noting that this assertion was for rhetorical reasons, legitimizing Alexander as the hegemon of the Greek World.
Another potential piece of evidence that could be utilized as a counterargument to the multidimensional linguistic heritage of the Macedonian people from a more practical standpoint is the Pella Curse Tablet, an artifact dating back to early Macedon which elucidated that the Macedonian dialect was at the very least a variation of Doric Greek, rather than being completely distinct. However I think that this axiom can be used for either argument, showing some Doric Greek heritage, while also showing unique characteristics of a Macedonian variety.
Moreover, Ancient Macedon also had a great degree of religious similarities to the rest of the Hellenic World, further cementing their philhellene bona fides, yet closer intertwining them to an explicitly Greek identity which in antiquity was to a certain degree characterized by their religious cult. In specific, there was an emphasis on the 12 Olympians, with a particular Macedonian fascination surrounding Zeus, Artemis, and Dionysus – thus establishing a degree of cultural/religious homogeneity between Macedon and the rest of Greece, with regional variations commonplace throughout Hellenic civilization. Now, despite having ruled the region for centuries, the Argread Dynasty had always claimed to have originated from the Peloponnesian City of Argos as explicated above, hence the dynastic eponym, claiming lineage dating back to the Archaic King Temenus, and his descendants who – either Caranus or Perdicass I depending on the source, fled to the Homeric no man’s land of Macedon, and if the story was actually veritable, it could emphasize a distinctly Dorian Greek origin. However, even when assuming this understanding is true, I believe that it does not stand up to the proper scrutiny of analyzing or attempting to analyze the heritage and genetic composition of the Argead Dynasty.
Throughout the centuries, the historical legacy of Alexander has echoed louder than almost any figure in Antiquity, and the understanding of his identity has largely evolved depending on the narrator. However, perhaps the most iconic example of Alexander’s story reverberating through the eons are the various versions of the Alexander Romance, with Medieval Latin and Persian manuscripts both depicting him not only as the quintessential exemplar of chivalry, ambition, valor, and bravery but as the climacteric king of the Greeks and the epitome of a noble, glorious ruler (despite the more nuanced veracity of the matter). Furthermore, one of the most famous pieces of Medieval English Literature, Geoffery Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales included a short tragedy surrounding the life of Alexander and how he was held hostage by and eventually destroyed by the cruel mistress that was a fortune – yet interestingly identified him as the “Second King of the Greeks”, after his father Philip – which further emphasizes his historic legacy as being identified as a Greek (despite what the more specific reality may or may not be). Lastly, a myriad of poets, philosophers, orators, politicians, nationalists, and scholars of the modern Hellenic Republic – or Greece – has continuously referred to Alexander as the Father of the Greeks and Father of the Nation, for his role in spreading Hellenistic Culture and unifying the Greeks in his conquest of the known world; which, despite the questionable veracity, with Alexander himself even going as the King of Asia, is quite the impeccable archetype for any nation to venerate as their collective father, proverbially speaking.
Beyond these sources, it is also paramount that we consult two of the greatest rhetorical masters in all of antiquity, one a politician, the other a philosopher, who revealed immeasurable insights regarding not only the ancient world and it’s nature, but of the human condition altogether. Regarding the former – Demosthenes, often renowned as one of history’s greatest orators and the last great democrat of Ancient Greece, was an outspoken critic of Philip II’s expansion throughout the Greek World and had delivered a series of charismatic, highly eloquent, and dramatized speeches against Philip’s perceived imperialism and unjust aggression – which were so iconic that to the present day a speech which is focused on the specific criticism of a specific figure, movement, or agenda is still referred to as a Philippic. The Third Philippic in particular addresses Philip both as a barbarian and insufficiently Greek, which although potentially being able to be interpreted as barbarian – Demosthenes does attribute and accredit the Argead’s for possessing certain Greek characteristics, and merely being insufficiently Greek and lacking the characteristics necessary in Athenian eyes to lead the Greek world and thus can be understood as not only eloquent but nuanced in it’s understanding, and can be understood for either argument’s sake.
Lastly, regarding perhaps history’s most influential philosopher – Aristotle, in his great work, in my opinion his magnum and one of the higher echelon works on political theory of all time, simply entitled ‘Politics’, is perhaps one of the greatest reflections and contemplations upon the affairs of state, society, and various elements of practical government and civilizational administration ever composed by man. Within the first chapter hitherto, Aristotle addresses a rather fascinating talking point surrounding the emphasis on Greek government and acknowledging a fairly common stance at the time of the superiority of Greek administration when compared to those who were partially Greek or Barbarian – which can be interpreted either way, yet he did make numerous, sometimes contradictory statements surrounding Macedon. As he was born in the Chalcidice, a costal series of peninsulas which were consolidated under the reign of Philip II, and although he served in the Macedonian court for many years, even tutoring Alexander the Great himself – much of his views on the ideal government and the ethnic group to run aforesaid polity contradicted with that of Macedon, which can be interpreted in either way; yet I feel is worth mentioning and contemplating primarily due to the nuance and the consequential nature of the document from a man who knew the Argead’ s better than any other philosopher in the ancient world.
In conclusion, it is with utmost alacrity that I reaffirm our initial hypothesis, that the identity of Alexander and the greater Argead Dynasty altogether was not distinctly and explicitly Greek, nor was it explicitly Non-Greek (or Barbarian as the Athenians would put it) – rather it was a fusion of Dorian Greek, various neighboring communities and identities, and a distinct pseudo-Hellenic, philhellenic Macedonian identity that was integral to the Argead’ s throughout the centuries, just as the Argead dynasty became integral to the very idea of Macedon as a nation and a people. Not only has it been reaffirmed by ancient scholars such as Herodotus, modern historians such as Robin Lane Fox, and linguists such as Borza, and an analysis of the family lineage and history of the Argead Dynasty, but common sense would hold it evident and of utmost veracity that the Macedonian people and nation-state, as one on the frontier (as verified by Homer’s own words), would naturally evolve throughout the generations into an amalgamation of peoples, with the ruling dynasty thereof epitomizing that here better than almost anywhere else in the history of the world, and one truly axiomatic of the family that would eventually conquer the entire known world, from the Danube to the Indus. Lastly, the understanding of Argead fusion, has held its own against the scrutiny of historical legacy, Hellenistic generalizations, court pamphleteers, and charismatic orators, and is truly a testament, an aphorism for all those who seek to gauge a better understanding of history, that in cases as storied and complex as this, that it is very rarely one way or the other, very rarely is something explicitly definable with one term and one term alone, rather, our history, akin to the present day is often highly nuanced and far more complex to grasp than a simple yes or no – a quintessential axiom to remember for our everyday lives, and one that can be internalized as a case not only for rationalism, but to be arbiter’s of compromise.
For on the road to rationalism, there can be many roadblocks, yet one of the main one’s that has been elucidated today is the almost tribalistic over-emphasis and fixation surrounding who holds claim to identity – for the truth is that none have claim, and yet, all have claim. For whether it be of a long-gone King, or whether viewing ones self and the world around them in what has become known as Identity Politics. For when one disregards reason and practicality in the name of sectarian division and identity, divides are so often erected that can obfuscate practical development, and prevent us from understanding ideas as beneficial or detrimental at face value, or in the case of Alexander – understanding him as a great yet flawed strategist, leader, visionary, and youth who rearranged the world in his image. For if anything from this study can be internalized for the modern day beyond nuance and compromise, it shall be to internalize the past from a pragmatic point of view – for to quote Sir Winston Churchill and countless other erudite visionaries; “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.