Alexander III’s Empire: Macedonian, Achaemenid or Oecumenic Greek?

Alexander III’sEmpire: Macedonian, Achaemenid or Oecumenic Greek? GuendalinaD.M. Taietti ABSTRACT In less than twelve years (334–323 BC) Alexander the Great built avast empire stretching from Macedon in the West to Ancient India in the East. Alexander united the then known world and its different populations under asingle political institution, but he did not create deep intercultural connections among the Macedonians, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the many populations of the Achaemenid Empire, nor did he establish along-lasting universal administrative system for all provinces. Scholarship has often excused Alexander’slack of interest in renovating the political fabric of the Persian Empire as the inevitable consequence of the shortness of his rule; it has interpreted his actions as those of abrutish conqueror when he rejected or took down Achaemenid institutions, or as those of the ‘last of the Achaemenids’– after Pierre Briant’sexpression– when he adopted Oriental etiquette. The aim of this paper is to assess the nature of Alexander’sstatesmanship, specifically with regard to his impact on the local populations of the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia. Undeniably, Alexander was more aconqueror and ageneral rather than apolitical leader; however, his politico-administrative choices, which combined conservation and transformation, show acute political awareness and astrong instinct for adaptation in line with the different ethnic and cultural backgrounds of the empire. This is especially noteworthy if we consider his fourth-century BC context. In fact, from the ancient Greek sources it appears that Alexander fostered some intercultural exchanges, but also wanted to keep ethnic identities and their role in the empire distinct. The paper also seeks to challenge ancient and modern scholarship’s‘Hellenocentric’ view and to investigate how local societies in Iranian Plateau and Central Asia actually responded to Alexander’sleadership. KEYWORDS Alexander the Great; Achaemenid Empire; Macedonian Imperialism; administration; Iranians; unity of mankind. INTRODUCTION In less than twelve years (334–323 BC) Alexander the Great built avast empire stretching from Macedon in the West to India in the East, and uniting the then known world and its different peoples, with their own languages, religious beliefs, and traditions. 1 Among these peoples were the Macedonians, Greeks, Egyptians and many populations of the Achaemenid Empire, such as the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Areians, Scythians, Arachosians, Bactrians, Sogdians, Gedrosians, and Indians. This political entity, which we label ‘Alexander’sEmpire’2 or the ‘Macedonian Empire’, was acomplex, multiform system understood in different ways by the peoples living in it: Alexander tried to accommodate the different peoples’ needs, but 1 For Alexander’secumenical empire, reaching the entire oecumene (i.e. the Hellenocentric inhabited world, the world known to the Greeks), see Mavrojannis 2017, 133–138. 2 Cf. Berve 1926. STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1, 82–104 83GUENDALINAD.M. TAIETTI he was not able to establish along-lasting administrative system or acultural programme that worked for every province.3 Various factors destabilised Alexander’srule: for example, the absence of acentral, homogeneous, cultural or religious identity that could have made all subjects feel as though they were inhabitants of asingle (Macedonian, Greek, or Persian?) empire, as Zoroastrianism did for the Achaemenids.4 Moreover, there was the absence of administrative unity, which did not simply entail that there was no unitary political system, but also not adefinite way for Alexander to present himself to his peoples, and for those peoples to perceive the role of Alexander as their political, religious, and military leader.5 This absence of administrative unity and of acommon understanding of the role of the leader has also impacted our assessment of his government skills. However, both Iranians and Macedonians appear in principle to have been open to social, linguistic, artistic, and religious plurality.6 An example of Persian openness7 toward the other is provided by Herodotus in book III of the Histories, where he says that Darius Iallegedly showed to the Greeks and the Indian Callatiae that their different ways of taking care of their dead– cremation and consumption respectively– were both acceptable, as the use and wont is lord of all (νόμον πάντων βασιλέα; Herodotus, III, 38.4).8 This sentence has become famous in scholarship as representative of Darius’ cultural ‘relativism’ and revealing of the freedom given to the subjects of the Achaemenid Empire to follow their own traditions (Redfield 2002, 27; Rood 2006, 296–300). The Macedonians were exposed to the different languages and customs of their non-Greek neighbours, the Illyrians, Thracians, and Paeonians. For example, Audata, the first or the second of Philip II’swives, was Illyrian (For Audata, see Carney 2000, 57–58; Heckel 2006, 64. Cf. Koulakiotis 2008, 26), and Langarus, king of the Agrianians,9 was chosen by Alexander as his military associate in the Balkans (Arrian, Anab. I, 5.2–5). Their Greek 3 For atheoretical approach to Alexander’sempire as a‘short-term empire’, see Rollinger– Degen– Gehler 2020, 15–19. 4 Cf. Brosius 2003, 173: ‘Alexander failed to understand the ideological issues underlying Persian Kingship’; Fredricksmeyer 2003, 253–278. Brosius and Fredricksmeyer particularly stress Alexander’sincapability to understand, appreciate and adopt the key elements of Achaemenid kingship, culture and religion that made the subjects feel part of the same empire, notwithstanding their local traditions and cultural background. Contra: Briant 2002a, 876: Alexander as the ‘last Achaemenid’. See also: Lane Fox 2007, 267–311; Wiemer 2007, 281–309; Olbrycht 2010, 342–369: Alexander understood Persian imperial culture; Degen 2019, 53–95: adoption of Persian strategies of representation. 5 See also Wiesehöfer 1994/2001, 29–30: the Achaemenid ‘Royal protocol insists on the point that kingship is firmly rooted in Persia, and requires descent from one family: the one of Achaemenes. It appears to have been this the stumbling-block that caused Alexander, who was thoroughly familiar with Achaemenid conduct, to fail in his attempt to […] gain the support of the Persians for himself until the death of his antagonist’. 6 On multiculturalism and multi-religiosity as key elements of the Achaemenid Empire, see Rollinger 2014b, 149–192. For the plurality of Persian religious landscape, see Henkelman 2008, 427–452. Cf. also Briant 2002a, 178: the titulature of Darius Iin his inscriptions and iconography ‘eloquently attest to the royal desire to depict every country of the Empire united in harmonious cooperation organised by and surrounding the king’; e.g., DNa (= Lecoq 1997, 219–221; Kuhrt 2007, 502) ‘King of countries containing all kind of men’; DPg (= Lecoq 1997, 229–230; Kuhrt 2007, 483) ‘[Ahura Mazda bestowed on Darius] kingship over this wide earth, in which there are many lands… the lands of other tongues’. 7 Or, at least, the Histories serve as evidence that Alexander would expect the Persians to be open to other cultures, or that they had that reputation among the Greeks. 8 Kingsley 2018, 37–58. Cf. Plutarch, De Alex. I, 5 (= Mor. 328C–329A): Alexander the civiliser. 9 The Agrianians were probably aPaeonian tribe; Langarus: Berve 1926, II, 230, n. 460; Heckel 2006, 145. 84 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 neighbours also had amajor impact on the Argead court: the presence of anumber of Greek cities inside Macedon influenced the social and cultural fabric of the kingdom, and Philip II invited the Greek philosopher Aristotle to tutor his son Alexander (Bosworth 1970, 407–413). As aruler, Alexander III occupied numerous, contextual, overlapping roles (Cf. Stewart 1993, 86). In the Greek-speaking world, he was the king of the Macedonians: their political, military and religious leader.10 But he was also the ἡγεμών (civil and military leader) of the Corinthian League and στρατηγς αὐτοκράτωρ (commander-in-chief) of the Panhellenic campaign:11 this made him the leader of the Greeks in the mainland and the liberator of those in Asia Minor. Within mainland Greece, Alexander was not only the leader of the Panhellenic campaign, but also, from some perspectives, atyrannical enemy and the destroyer of Thebes (Squillace 2004; Wiemer 2011, 179–204). In Macedon itself, people certainly regarded Alexander as asuccessful general fighting in the East but, since he had spent only two years ruling the country before leaving for Asia, they probably considered the regent Antipater as their ruler.12 The complexities related to the definition of Alexander’spower become more obvious in the eastern provinces, and scholarship has often excused his disinterest in reforming the political fabric of the Persian Empire because of the brevity of his rule (Cf. Brosius 2003, 172). In Egypt Alexander was welcomed as emancipator and pharaoh (Arrian, Anab. III, 3; Curtius IV, 7.4. Pfeiffer 2014, 89–106); in Mesopotamia (van der Spek 2003, 340–342) and in the Iranian Plateau he presented himself as the lawful successor of the Achaemenids (Wiemer 2007; Olbrycht 2014). In Bactria, Sogdiana, and the Indian regions of the Persian Empire, where the Achaemenid suzerainty had always been light touch, he was perceived as aforeign tyrant seeking to establish his authority (cf. Howe 2016, 151–182). Thus, Alexander’sactions were sometimes interpreted as those of abrutish conqueror (O’Brien 1994; Worthington 1999, 39–55; Grainger 2007, 81–82), in those incidents where he rejected or took down Achaemenid institutions, or as those of the ‘last of the Achaemenids’ (Briant 1982b, 330; Briant 2002a, 876)– after Pierre Briant’sexpression– when he appropriated Oriental etiquette (Tuplin 1990, 21–22: ‘Persian Decor’). The aim of this paper is to assess Alexander’sstatesmanship and his impact on the local populations of the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia. Undeniably, he was more aconqueror and ageneral rather than apolitical leader;13 however, his politico-administrative choices, characterised by conservation and transformation,14 show an acute political awareness and 10 For adiscussion on Macedonian kingship and Alexander’sleadership in Macedon, see Taietti in print. Cf. also Greenwalt 2010, 151–163. 11 For Alexander’srole as ἡγεμών of the Corinthian League, see Wallace 2016, 251–255; Richardson 2019, 42–59. 12 Antipater acted as ageneral already during Philip’sreign and enjoyed favour among the Macedonians (see Berve 1926, II, 46–51, n. 94); Diodorus (XVII, 118.1) states that Antipater was left by Alexander as the leader of Europe (Ἀντίπατρον ἐπὶ τῆς Εὐρώπης στρατηγν) and that after the king’sdeath he had great power (μετ δὲ τὴν τελευτὴν πλεῖστον ἰσχύσαντος τν κατ τὴν Εὐρώπην); Arrian (Anab. I, 11.3) writes that Antipater was in charge of Macedonian and Greek matters (τ μὲν κατ Μακεδονίαν τε καὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας Ἀντιπάτρῳ ἐπιτρέψας). 13 Borza 1990, 248: Alexander was ‘akind of military chief or warlord’; Stewart 1993, 86: Alexander ‘created an Empire of domination that retained many characteristics of achiefdom’; Gilley– Worthington 2010, 194: ‘there is consensus that Alexander was agreat military leader, however, few historians today would agree that his leadership abilities as king and his personal ambitions as aman were also great’. 14 Briant 2009, 168: ‘there are continuities and adaptations that mark the transition from the administration of the Great Kings to that of Alexander’. Cf. King 2010, 388: ‘One must conclude that Alexander’stravelling court necessitated changes to Macedonian traditions’. 85GUENDALINAD.M. TAIETTI an instinct for adaptation to the different cultural and social backgrounds of the empire (cf. Fuller 1958, 264–265; Hammond 1981, 257–264). Alexander’sleadership becomes more noteworthy if we consider his fourth-century BC historical context. From the ancient sources, it appears that the Macedonian conqueror maintained acareful balance in administering the empire: fostering some intercultural exchanges, while keeping the ethnic identities and their role in the empire distinct. ALEXANDER III’SADMINISTRATION Asurvey of the administrative choices that Alexander made during the Asiatic expedition (334–323 BC) can help us evaluate the nature of his political leadership and ability to govern. These twelve years can be divided into four periods, according to the political agenda of the Macedonian king: i) May 334–333 BC, the beginning of the Asiatic campaign; ii) late 333–331 BC, the annexation of Levant, Egypt, and Mesopotamia; iii) end 331–330 BC, the march in Iran; iv) late 330–323 BC, Central Asia, the Indian campaign, and the return to Babylon. THE BEGINNING OF THE ASIATIC CAMPAIGN The first period goes from May 334 BC, the time of the start of his Asiatic campaign, to the battle of Issus in November 333 BC.Alexander led his army in accordance with his position as king of Macedon and commander-in-chief of the Greeks: he promoted Panhellenic freedom and campaigned with the aim of freeing Hellenic cities in Asia Minor from the Persian yoke.15The Macedonian conqueror constructed his propaganda around his descent from Achilles,16 who provided him with the necessary link between his own eastward expedition and the glorious past of the Greeks and the Trojan War.17 Furthermore, as Homer’sProtesilaus, Alexander was the first of his flotilla to leap on Asian soil after crossing the Hellespont (Diodorus, XVII, 17.2; Arrian, Anab. I, 11.7). Arrian (Anab. I, 11.5) informs us that Alexander paid homage to Protesilaus’ spoils, which he justified as apropitiatory action for abetter outcome of his own campaign. This homage is highly symbolic, as it links the Macedonian to both the Trojan and the Persian Wars: Alexander becomes the reverse of Xerxes, who allowed the desecration of the Homeric soldier’stomb (See Taietti 2016, 159–178). After the victory at the Granicus River (May 334 BC), in the Greek cities the tyrannical governments favourable to the Persians were overthrown (Arrian, Anab. I, 18.1–2), and new democratic and pro-Macedonian authorities were established. 18 Asia Minor was the place where Alexander’spropaganda of Panhellenic freedom had to bear fruit: he opted for adual system, allowing freed Greek cities to restore their laws and administer themselves independently (Diodorus, XVII, 24.1; Plutarch, Alex. 34.2; Arrian, Anab. I, 18.2.), and he placed Macedonian garrisons and Macedonian satraps in charge of political administration where needed (cf. Badian 1965b, 167–169; Bosworth 1988, 251–258). In reality, the Greek cities un15 Plutarch, Alex. 34.2: ‘all the tyrannies were abolished and the Greek cities might live on their own laws’ (τς τυραννίδας πάσας καταλυθῆναι καὶ πολιτεύειν αὐτονόμους). 16 Plutarch, Alex. 2.1: Alexander was the descendant of Achilles via Olympias and of Heracles through PhilipII. 17 Flower 2000, 108. For adiscussion on Panhellenism and propaganda before Alexander, see Squillace 2010, 76–80; Mitchell 2017, 49–100; and Pownall 2020, 199–213. 18 As Tarn 1948, I, 17 has pointed out, ‘Persia’sfoes (the Greek democratic cities in Asia Minor) were (Alexander’s) best friends’. See also Wallace 2018, 50–52. 86 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 derwent only asuperficial change. There was no political liberation, but simply achange of despot: the pacts were unilateral and Alexander awarded freedom to the cities as agift.19 The Greek cities had to obey him instead of the Achaemenid King, and the other subjects living in Asia Minor had to report to aMacedonian rather than to aPersian satrap, but the result was that they still had aforeign ruler.20 In Hellespontine Phrygia, Alexander appointed Calas (Arrian, Anab. I, 17.1. See Berve 1926, II, 189, n. 398; Heckel 2006, 74–75) son of Harpalus of Elimiotis, leaving intact the administrative system of the region: the only change was that the satrap was aMacedonian and not aPersian. In Caria, he appointed the Hecatomnid Ada, who adopted him as her son (Diodorus, XVII, 24.2–3; Arrian, Anab. I, 23.7–8. See Berve 1926, II, 11–12, n. 20; Heckel 2006, 3, n. 1); in this case Alexander followed his father’sexample of admitting worthy foreigners to his inner circle and, again, left the satrapy as it was before his passage. The only difference between the rule of the Macedonian and that of the Persian Orontobantes was that the Carian population saw Alexander as one of them, as Ada’slegitimate heir (Cf. Plutarch, Alex. 22.4; Diodorus, XVII, 24.2–3). Once in Lycia, Alexander did change the administrative status of the region, joining it to the neighbouring Pamphylia and creating anew satrapy under the control of Nearchus of Crete; however, this change was geographical rather than political. Alexander redesigned the boundaries of the ‘joint-satrapy’, but he modelled its administration on the pre-existing Achaemenid satrapal system. Furthermore, it was aprovisional change: Nearchus was in fact called back to court in 330/329 BC (Arrian, Anab. I, 24.4–5).21 There is strong evidence that Alexander largely used Persian structures because he had realised that the Achaemenid Empire was not as weak and decadent as Classical authors had made out; after all, it had been able to absorb crises and rebellions for over two centuries without collapsing (Olbrycht 2017, 195). As Dominique Lenfant has pointed out, the trope of the decadence of the Achaemenid King and of his Empire was constructed in the 5th century BC to serve Cyrus the Younger’spolitical propaganda against his brother Artaxerxes II, and it became atopos in Greek literature and historiography (Lenfant 2001, 407–438). It does not seem to be borne out in contemporary Achaemenid evidence; furthermore, if Darius III was as feeble as Arrian wants us to believe, then Alexander’sachievements have been severely overestimated. However, Arrian’snegative description of the Persian King actually aims at emphasising the Macedonian’ssuperiority as apolitical and military leader.22 Alexander needed aquick solution to the administrative issues posed by the annexation of the Achaemenid Empire (or part of it), and the adoption of the satrapal system allowed him to focus on his main goals: territorial conquest and the confrontation with Darius. The small 19 Miletus (Diodorus, XVII, 22.4–5; Plutarch, Alex. 17.1; Arrian, Anab. I, 19.6) and Halicarnassus (Diodorus, XVII, 27.6; Arrian, Anab. I, 23.4–6) are clear examples of Alexander’supper hand in the administration of the area: as they opposed to his passage, they were besieged and taken by storm. However, Miletus was granted freedom as the Milesians surrendered at last, whereas Halicarnassus was destroyed. 20 Cf., e.g., Alexander’sletter to the Chians (Heisserer 1980, 79–95): the Chians have to change their laws into ‘democratic’ (pro-Macedonian) ones, accept the exiles, provide twenty fully-armed triremes, and, when problems and tentions arise, obey to the Macedonian garrison. 21 Bosworth (1988, 230–231) suggests that the satrapy was created by Alexander upon the Lycians’ request, as they did not want to be under Carian control any more due to the unpopularity of Hecatomnid rule. For Nearchus, see Berve 1926, II, 269–272, n. 544; Heckel 2006, 171–173. 22 Whether we agree or not with the designation of Alexander as ‘Great’, there is no doubt that the Asiatic campaign was alarge and unprecedented endeavour. Cf. Briant 2002b, 193–210; Brosius 2003, 170. 87GUENDALINAD.M. TAIETTI changes Alexander implemented in the Achaemenid administration in Asia Minor, such as the introduction of Macedonian garrisons or any replacement in the satrapies’ management, were due to the need to secure the territories already conquered and show his presence as the new legitimate ruler. It is also worth mentioning that at the beginning the Asiatic campaign was ostensibly amission of liberation, so Alexander had probably not thought about the creation of anew administrative system (Cf. Arrian, Anab. II, 14.4–6: in his letter to Darius III, Alexander presents the Macedonian campaign as aresponse to Persian offence; Brunt 2003, 50). On the other hand, by playing the role of the freedom-fighter for the Hellenic cause, Alexander felt free to make changes (Fuller 1958, 268; Bosworth 1988, 230–231; Flower 2000, 107–124: Alexander took up the Panhellenic campaign from his father and adapted it to his needs) and to keep only what he deemed useful in order to secure his power. As aresult, he appointed Macedonians as satraps to replace the nobility connected to the Achaemenid royal house. THE ANNEXATION OF THE LEVANT, EGYPT AND MESOPOTAMIA During the second period of his Asian campaign, Alexander reshaped his political agenda: in fact, although he had already gained more territory than initially planned with the ‘war of freedom’, he decided to carry on with the campaign, seeing that only adecisive victory over Darius III would secure his achievements and his sovereignty in Asia Minor.23 It is worth noting that Alexander retained the original form of his Panhellenic propaganda but, in order to justify the extension of his campaign, he added anew spin to it: the ‘war of revenge’ for Xerxes’ wrongdoings in Greece during the second Persian War. 24 The new political goal of Alexander’scampaign is outlined in his answer to Darius III’sletter, which was received at Marathus in Syria in 332 BC (Arrian, Anab. II, 14.4). In the period after Issus (late 333–331 BC), the Macedonian army passed through the Levant, Egypt, and went up to Mesopotamia. For the most part, the local populations of these regions, distressed by oppressive Achaemenid rule, warmly welcomed Alexander as their liberator and new ruler. The two exceptions were Tyre and Gaza, and in the case of Tyre resistance to Alexander was due to acultural misunderstanding: the Macedonian had failed to comprehend that for the Tyrians no foreigner was allowed to sacrifice to Melkart/Heracles in the shrine on the old Acropolis in the mainland.25 When the Macedonian army arrived in Egypt, the satrap Mazaces 26 immediately surrendered as he had no time to gather an army and was aware of the lack of support among Egyptians. In his place Alexander appointed two locals, Doloaspis and Petisis, flanked by two Macedonian generals, Peucestas and Balacrus.27 Furthermore, he granted the government of the neighbouring country of Libya to the Greek Apollonius, son of Charinus, and the part of Arabia near Heroöpolis to Cleomenes of Naucratis.28 Cleomenes was also appointed as the financial superintendent and was ordered by Alexander to collect the tribute due to him from the governors, 23 The battle of Issus in November 333 BC (and also the battle of Gaugamela in October 331 BC) had not provided Alexander with the decisive victory and recognition he was looking for, since Darius III fled the battlefield. 24 However, according to Diodorus, XVI, 89.2 already Philip did so. 25 For adescription of the siege of Tyre, see Diodorus, XVII, 40.2–46; Plutarch, Alex. 24.2–25.2; Arrian, Anab. II, 16.7–24. Cf. Curtius, IV, 2.1–4.18. See also Heckel 1997, 189–227. 26 Berve 1926, II, 245–246, n. 485. 27 Doloaspis: Berve 1926, II, 147, n. 286; Petisis: Berve 1926, II, 317–318, n. 633; Peucestas: Berve 1926, II, 319, n. 635; Balacrus: Berve 1926, II, 100, n. 199. 28 Apollonius: Berve 1926, II, 56, n. 104; Cleomenes: Berve 1926, II, 210–211, n. 431. 88 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 while allowing them to rule their respective districts as per their ancient custom. According to Arrian (Anab. III, 5), Alexander divided the administration of Egypt among numerous men ‘because he was surprised at the natural strength of the country, and he thought it unsafe to entrust the rule of the whole to asingle person’. Thus, Alexander kept the Persian administrative structure of the satrapy, but he opted for amore decentralised system (Bengtson 1985,159), atrend that had started with the division of political and military powers in Asia Minor. The two novel aspects of this approach were agrowing interest in cooperation with chosen and well-disposed non-Macedonians (Greeks as well as individuals of the local aristocracy), and, from that time on, the division of three types of powers– civil, military and financial (See Harpalus, the royal treasurer at Ecbatana; cf. Badian 1961, 16–43; Howe 2020, 195–212). THE MARCH IN IRAN In the third period (end 331 BC–330 BC), the Macedonian army marched through Iran, in territories without aGreek cultural background, and at the core of the Persian Empire. Alexander was already collaborating with selected members of the local Iranian aristocracy, but it is only after Darius III’sassassination and Bessus’ claim to the Achaemenid throne (summer 330 BC) that the Macedonian started systematically to choose satraps from the defeated Persian nobility (Briant 1982a, 358). In fact, in Asia Minor and in Mesopotamia (specifically Caria and Babylon) Alexander had appointed non-Macedonians, but they were isolated examples of people whom he trusted and wanted to add to his own inner circle, following his father PhilipII’sexample, who had also expanded the Companion circles by adding people from outside the Macedonian aristocracy (Bosworth 2003, 28–29). In the territories to the east of Asia Minor, which were more ‘Persianised’, Alexander sought more support from the locals because he had no time to acquaint himself with the regional customs and traditions of each province, and he was aware that he needed the favour of the Iranian nobility to be accepted as the new king (and for his rule to be respected by the local populations).29 Moving into these regions necessitated another evolution in the Macedonian’sbrand: in addition to the parallels with Olympic divinities and Homeric heroes, such as Zeus, Heracles, Achilles, and Protesilaus, Alexander and his entourage also emphasised his similarities with Persian cultural milieu via Cyrus the Great, described in the Greek literary tradition as the virtuous founder of the Persian Empire. 30 Moreover, after Darius’ death, the Macedonian conqueror made afurther gesture to his Iranian subjects and presented himself as the avenger of the Great King, who was unjustly assassinated by the usurper Bessus / Artaxerxes V(Diodorus, XVII, 73.4. Cf. Lane Fox 2007, 277; Squillace 2015, 109; Greenwalt 2015, 109–110).31 This new propaganda was supported by his new image (Olbrycht 2014, 40–56),32 which entailed the 29 Bosworth 2002, 2: ‘that was too short atime to create institutions of empire other than those he inherited from the Persians’. See also Strootman 2007, 131–132. 30 See Strabo XI, 11.4: Alexander is φιλόκυρος (fond of Cyrus) and, in the first instance, he wants to spare Cyropolis. At Pasargadae Alexander orders Cyrus’ tomb to be rebuilt (Arrian, Anab. VI, 29.4–11). Cf. Briant 1982a, 388. 31 Greenwalt 2015, 109–110: ‘his political and military aims changed, and so too the ideological themes useful for justifying them […] after 330 BC the slogan of revenge and freedom remained but Alexan - der [and his supporters] adapted it to new military aims. Whereas in 336 BC the theme of revenge was addressed to the Greeks, now Alexander directed the revenge theme to the Macedonians and, above all, to the Persian nobles’. 32 See Diodorus, XVIII, 48.5: (Alexander) became an admirer of Persian customs (τν Περσικν νομίμων ζηλωτὴς ἐγένετο). 89GUENDALINAD.M. TAIETTI adoption of some features of the Persian court etiquette, such as the dress (Diodorus, XVII, 77.5; Plutarch, Alex. 45.1–2; De Alex. I, 8 (= Mor. 329 F–330 A). Cf. Collins 2008; 2012, 371–402)33 and the paraphernalia of the Great King, and, gradually, the courtly pomp 34 and the μηλοφόροι (the Persian royal guards; Arrian, Anab. VII, 29.4).35 Alexander’sadoption of Persian etiquette is the quintessential example of his pragmatic approach to cultural matters; it did not imply Verschmelzungspolitik– there was no holistic plan of acculturation and fusion between the peoples. Rather we have aconciliatory policy,36 one that arose from Alexander’srecognition of the importance of political and military collaboration between Macedonians and Asians (Hammond 1997, 187–188; Olbrycht 2017, 195–199), 37 and entailed adoption of only the most obvious and ostentatious characteristics of the Achaemenid court– those that would attract the attention of Iranians, but also built on his and the Macedonians’ sensitivity (Lane Fox 2007, 269). Moreover, Alexander III assigned only the administration of the satrapy to locals, leaving the control and the defence of the territory in the hands of trustworthy Macedonian generals. In the same way, although Iranians started being enlisted in the army, the highest positions of command were still held by the Macedonians (Bosworth 1988, 236). The pairing of Iranian administrators with Macedonian garrisons suggests that Alexander’sprimary purpose was the smooth management and defence of his empire: he was less keen to foster Hellenisation. This is not to say that Alexander did not endorse cultural exchanges at all or did not envisage them in the long run: he actually praised Peucestas for having learnt Persian and won the sympathy of the Persian nobility (Arrian, Anab. VI, 30, VII, 6; Diodorus, XIX, 14). However, at this stage of the campaign, cultural exchanges were not Alexander’spriority, as he focused on his military and political goals: first, the chase of Darius III; secondly, the pursuit of Bessus; and, third, his formal recognition as King of the Persian Empire, i.e. arecognition of his conquests, of his spear-won land. In this respect, Alexander was an able, crafty, and pragmatic leader, but definitely not (at least intentionally) acultural merger or the father of ‘brotherhood and unity of mankind’.38 33 On Alexander wearing Persian apparel and hunting in ancient Near Eastern style, see Spawforth 2012, 169–207. 34 On proskynesis, cf. Matarese 2013, 75–85, who interestingly suggests that Alexander wanted to introduce proskynesis as akiss between equals, not as an act of prostration. See also Müller 2019, 227–229 for recent treatment of the topic, with relevant literature. 35 Among Alexander’sendeavours to be accepted by the Iranians, there should be added the marriage with Rhoxane: Strabo XI, 11; Curtius, VIII, 4.23–26; Plutarch, Alex. 47.4; Arrian, Anab. IV, 19.5–6. 36 Cf. Fuller 1958, 272: policy of partnership; Heckel 2008, 52: policy of inclusion; Anson 2015: 97–98: plan of amalgamation; the union of Europe and Asia to be intended as ‘universal allegiance to Alexander’. Icall Alexander’spolicy ‘conciliatory’, as he was trying to conciliate Macedonian-Greeks and Iranians, i.e., to make them work together and cooperate without aiming at distributing equal rights to them. See also Hammond 1997, 187–190: Alexander’sAsian policy interpreted as an equal share between Macedonians and Asians in the administration of the empire. For adiscussion of the term ‘policy of fusion’ cf. Wiesehöfer 2016, 355–362. 37 Cf. also Mullen 2018, 244–245 for his interesting views on Alexander’sPersianisation: ‘regardless of whether or not it was successful, these developments (the adoption of Persian elements at court) were calculated to appeal to the Persian nobility, in their own terms, that Alexander was the New King. […] In face of this overwhelming power, the Persians accepted Alexander in this role in an effort to receive their own estates and status as gifts from the new king’. 38 Tarn 1948, I, 116–117: all the people of the empire might be partners in the commonwealth and live in unity of heart and mind; II, Appendix 25, ch. VI: ‘Alexander at Opis’, 434–449; De Mauriac 1949, 107–114; Robinson 1949, 304. Cf. Borza 2012, 317: there was alargely ethnic Macedonian imperial 90 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 CENTRAL ASIA, THE INDIAN CAMPAIGN AND THE WAY BACK The fourth period of Alexander’srule (late 330–323 BC) which comprised of the campaigns in Central Asia, the Indian Campaign and the return of the Macedonians to Babylon, is characterised by Alexander’semulation of Hercules, Dionysus, Perseus, Cyrus, Darius I, and Semiramis, in order to validate his ambition to continue marching East and then South in Gedrosia.39 This period is characterised by the strongest resistance to the passage of Alexander’sarmy since the beginning of the Persian campaign (Plutarch, Alex. 59.3–4, 63–64.1).40 However, as Anson (2015, 94–106) and Howe (2016, 151–177) have correctly pointed out, this resistance was not different in military terms (there was no ‘savage guerrilla fighting’ 41 ), but was more persistent and diffused, essentially because the locals were defending the status quo: the freedom they enjoyed during the Achaemenid rule. In Bactria and Sogdiana Alexander did not change his political and administrative plans: he still sought to be recognised as king of Asia, he carried on pairing locals with the Macedonians, founding cities, and promoted marriage-alliances. On the other hand, in the last years of the campaign these aspects of Alexander’spolicies were exacerbated, as he was growing impatient, his Macedonians were tired, and the locals refused to see him as alawful successor of the Achaemenids.42 administration from beginning to end. Alexander summoned Greeks at court for cultural reasons and had Greek troops for limited tasks, often under Macedonian command. Therefore, Alexander did not have aplan of brotherhood or apolicy of fusion. For the detractors of the theory of Alexander’sUnity of Mankind, see: Badian 1958, 425–430; Thomas 1968, 258–260; Bosworth 1980, 2–18; Worthington 1999, 51–52; Brunt 2003, 50; Gilley– Worthington 2010, 195–197. For the unity of mankind in Greek thought, see Baldry 1965, esp. 113–140 for Alexander. 39 Plutarch, De Alex. I, 10 (= Mor. 332AB): Ἡρακλέα μιμοῦμαι καὶ Περσέα ζηλ, καὶ τ Διονύσου μετιὼν ἴχνη (Iimitate Hercules, emulate Perseus, and follow in the footsteps of Dionysus). See also Strabo XVII, 1.43:  γοῦν Καλλισθένης φησὶ τν Ἀλέξανδρον φιλοδοξῆσαι μάλιστα ἀνελθεῖν ἐπὶ τ χρηστήριον, ἐπειδὴ καὶ Περσέα ἤκουσε πρότερον ἀναβῆναι καὶ Ἡρακλέα (For example, Callisthenes says that Alexander was very ambitious to go to the oracle, because he heard that also Perseus and Hercules went there before). Perseus plays avery important role in Alexander’sattempt to be perceived as aworthy heir to the Achaemenid throne, since, according to Herodotus (VII, 61.3), he is the hero linking the Greeks and the Persians. Arrian, Anab. VI, 24.3: ‘[Alexander betook himself] to rival Cyrus and Semiramis (ἔριν ἐμβαλεῖν πρς Κῦρον καὶ Σεμίραμιν)’; Strabo XI, 11,4: ὄντα φιλόκυρον ([Alexander] being fond of Cyrus). For the similarities between Alexander and DariusI, cf. Taietti 2016, 161–169. 40 For example, Satibarzanes in Aria at first submitted to Alexander’spassage but, as soon as he left, he massacred the Macedonian garrison. Alexander counter-reacted harshly: he set the forest alight and appointed Arsaces as satrap. In Sogdia, the seven fortresses north of Marcanda and Jaxartes opposed strong resistance to Alexander, led by Spitamenes. Alexander was particularly fortunate because, after the Massagetae cut off Spitamenes’ head, all resistance in the Hindu Kush area collapsed. In India (Chenab and Indus area) various independent rajahs blocked the passage of Alexander’sarmy; two bloody incidents were the massacre of the Malli and of the Oxydracae. Cf. Holt 2005, 45–65: Alexander’sinvasion in Bactria and Sogdiana is described as a‘desperate struggle’. 41 On the misuse of the term ‘guerrilla fighting’, see Antela Bernárdez 2014, 77–83. 42 Referring to the last year of campaign, Arrian says that Alexander was growing harsher (Anab. VII, 4.4: καὶ αὐτς Ἀλέξανδρος ὀξύτερος) and was not as tolerant towards the Macedonians as he used to be, since the barbarian attendance had spoiled him (Anab. VII, 8.3: Ἀλέξανδρος [ἦν γρ δὴ ὀξύτερός τε ἐν τῷ τότε καὶ ἀπ τῆς βαρβαρικῆς θεραπείας οὐκέτι ὡς πάλαι ἐπιεικὴς ἐς τοὺς Μακεδόνας]); cf. Curtius, III, 12.18–21. On the other hand, the Macedonians were growing weary too (Anab. VII, 8.2. Cf. Diodorus, XVII, 17.94, 109.2; Curtius, IX, 11). 97GUENDALINAD.M. TAIETTI CONCLUSIONS In this paper Idiscussed the multiform nature of Alexander’sleadership and how he evolved it in response to the events of the Persian campaign. Ihave argued that Alexander III probably always thought of his empire as culturally Macedonian and Hellenic,66 although he understood that Graeco-Macedonian military training of Iranians, adoption of some features of Oriental etiquette, and partnership in the administration were asine qua non for the stabilization of his power. However, the Asians only apparently enjoyed ‘communion of rule’ (Arrian’sκοινωνίαν τῆς ἀρχῆς) in fact, by the division of power and governance– the administrative function to the Iranians, and the lead of the military and financial sectors to the Macedonians or Greeks– Alexander pursued more of a‘policy of division’ rather than one of fusion. In aprevious paper, ‘The Herodotean Alexander’ (Taietti 2016, 159–178), Iargued that, before his campaign in the East, Alexander had gained ageneral knowledge of the Persian Empire’sgeography and socio-political composition from Herodotus’ Histories and from his first-hand experience of Persian influence on Macedon. One may also recall the Persian ambassadors at Philip II’scourt, whom the young Alexander purportedly questioned about their King’scharacter and prowess in battle, and about the roads of their Empire (Plutarch, Alex. 5.1–2). Alexander’sadoption of Oriental etiquette demonstrated in practice the necessity of being accepted by the Iranians, who initially looked upon him as an enemy and the destroyer of the harmony and prosperity guaranteed by the power that Ahura Mazda had bestowed upon the Achaemenid King DariusIII. The Macedonian’sappropriation of recognisable traits of the two brightest examples of Great Kings, Cyrus and Darius I, also helped him to be accepted by the Iranian population and convinced his fellow countrymen of the rightness of his choices. It is worth noting, however, that even toward the end of his campaign Alexander had in mind Argead policies, which he adapted to the Iranian cultural and political environment. His father Philip II had welcomed among his hetairoi worthy Macedonians from non-aristocratic families and Greeks; similarly, Alexander welcomed Iranians in his entourage and army. Like the Basilikoi Paides in Macedon, the Epigonoi were trained from childhood to fight as Macedonians and were educated according to Greek standards. They constituted agroup of loyal youth and served as ‘hostages’, allowing the king to keep control of the Iranian aristocracy. Iconsider the years following Alexander’sadoption of Oriental décor and application of conciliatory policy as particularly indicative of his ability to adapt to, and negotiate with, the local authorities in order to establish his power, while always keeping in mind his Macedonian background. Alexander exploited the similarities between the Macedonians and the Persians in order to reach his goals (Taietti 2016, 176–177; see also Fulínska 2016, 244); Philip II was amodel for Alexander’sconservation and transformation of his style of kingship,67 and from his father he had learnt to adopt other people’scustoms. Because of his flexible political and bureaucratic programme,68 modern scholars have valued and described Alexander’sperson66 Cf. also Hammond 2000, 141–160; Strootman 2007 for the continuity of Macedonian institutions in Macedonian kingdoms during the Hellenistic era. 67 Bosworth 2003, 28: ‘The Macedon that Alexander inherited was the creation of his father. The army he led was forged by Philip. The material resources of the Macedonian throne were acquired by Philip. The system of alliances which turned the Balkans into avirtual annexe of Macedon was Philip’sdevelopment, and the war against Persia was launched at the end of Philip’sreign. In his first years, at least, Alexander was continuing aprocess begun by his father’; Worthington 2003, 94–95. On Philip’stransformation of Macedonia, see Anson 2008, 17–25. 68 Tarn 1948, I, 9: ‘Alexander certainly did not cross the Dardanelles with any definite design of conquering the whole Persian Empire; he was guided by events’. 98 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 ality and statesmanship in contrasting ways. In this paper Ihave highlighted the incidents during the Asian Campaign that urged Alexander to create anew regal figure:69 apragmatic leader with astrong Macedonian cultural background, but at the same time able to freely blend together Persian, Macedonian, and Greek traditions in response to personal needs in different circumstances. ABBREVIATIONS BNJ = Brill’sNew Jacoby. Editor: Ian Worthington [online] SOURCES Aelianus, VH = Aelian: Historical Miscellany. Transl. G. Wilson. Loeb Classical Library 486. Cambridge, MA. 1997. Aristobulos = F. Pownall: Aristoboulos of Kassandreia (139). In: BNJ. Accessed on July 31st 2020 from URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1873-5363_bnj_a139 Arrian, Anab. = Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander. Transl. P.A. Brunt. Loeb Classical Library 236, 269. Cambridge MA. 1976–1983. Athenaeus = Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters VI: Books 12-13.594 b.Ed. and transl. S.Douglas Olson. Loeb Classical Library 327. Cambridge, MA. 2010. Chares = S. Müller: Chares of Mytilene (125). In: BNJ. Accessed on July 31st 2020 from URL: http://dx.doi. org/10.1163/1873-5363_bnj_a125 Curtius = Quintus Curtius: History of AlexanderI. Books 1–5; II. Books 6–10.Transl. J.C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library 368–369. Cambridge, MA. 1946. Diodorus = Diodorus Siculus: Library of HistoryVIII. Books 16.66-17. Transl. C. Bradford Welles. Loeb Classical Library 422. Cambridge, MA. 1963. Herodotus = Herodotus: The Persian Wars. Transl. A.D. Godley. Loeb Classical Library 117–120. Cambridge MA. 1920–1925. Plutarch, Alex. = Plutarch: Lives VII: Demosthenes and Cicero. Alexander and Caesar. Transl. B. Perrin. Loeb Classical Library 99. Cambridge MA. 1919. Plutarch, De Alex. = Plutarch: MoraliaIV. Roman Questions. Greek Questions. Greek and Roman Parallel Stories. On the Fortunate of the Romans. On the Fortunate or the Virtue of Alexander. Were the Athenians more famous in War or in Wisdom? Transl. F. Cole Babbit. Loeb Classical Library 305. Cambridge, MA. 1936. Ptolemy = T. Howe: Ptolemy (138). In: BNJ. Accessed on July 31 st 2020 from URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18735363_bnj_a138 Strabo = Strabo: Geography V: Books 10–12. Transl. H.L. Jones. Loeb Classical Library 211. Cambridge, MA. 1928. 69 Cf. Bosworth 1988, 229: ‘when Alexander invaded Asia, he was literally on anew ground. There were no precedents for the administration of the territories he annexed, no system inherited from his father’. For the ‘revisionist interpretation’ of Alexander’srule, see Hammond 1986, 73–85; Fredricksmeyer 2000, 136–166; Lane Fox 2007, 286–288; Weber 2009, 97–98. For the idea of ‘continuity’ between the Achaemenid and Alexander’sempire, see Briant 1979, 1402–1414; for the idea of ‘rupture’, cf. Droysen 1880, I, 360–361. 99GUENDALINAD.M. TAIETTI BIBLIOGRAPHY Albaladejo Vivero, M. 2019: La India vista por los autores clásicos. In: G. Cruz Andreotti (ed.): Tras los Pasos de Momigliano. Centralidad y Alteridad en el Mundo Greco-Romano. Barcelona, 109–126. Anson, E.M. 2008: Philip II and the Transformation of Macedonia: AReappraisal. In: T. Howe– J. Reames (eds): Macedonian Legacies. Studies in Ancient Macedonian History and Culture in Honor of Eugene N. Borza. Claremont CA, 17–30. Anson, E.M. 2015: Counter-Insurgency. The Lesson of Alexander the Great. In: T. Howe– E. Edward Garin– G. Wrightson (eds.): Greece, Macedon and Persia. Oxford– Havertown PA, 94–106. Antela Bernárdez, B. 2014: World is not enough. Alexander the Great in Sogdiana. Astudy in historiography. In: B. Antela Bernárdez– J. Vidal (eds.): Central Asia in Antiquity. Interdisciplinary Approaches. Oxford, 77–84. Badian, E. 1958: Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind. Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 7, 425–444. Badian, E. 1961: Harpalus. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 81, 16–43. Badian, E. 1965a: Orientals in Alexander’sArmy. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 85, 160–161. Badian, E. 1965b: The Administration of the Empire. Greece & Rome 12/2, 166–182. Badian, E. 1968: AKing’sNotebooks. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 72, 183–204. Baldry, H.C. 1965: The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought. Cambridge. Bengtson, H. 1985: Philippus und Alexander der Grosse. Die Begründer der hellenistischen Welt. München. Berve, H. 1926: Das Alexanderreich aus prosopographicher Grundlage. I– Darstellung. II– Prosographie. Munich. Borza, E.N. 1990: In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton. Borza, E.N. 2012: Ethnicity and cultural Policy at Alexander’sCourt. In: Worthington ed. 2003, 313–318. Bosworth, A.B. 1970: Aristotle and Callisthenes. Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 19/4, 407–413. Bosworth, A.B. 1980: Alexander and the Iranians. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 1–21. Bosworth, A.B. 1986: Alexander the Great and the Decline of Macedon. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 106, 1–12. Bosworth, A.B. 1988: Conquest and Empire. The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge. Bosworth, A.B. 1995: AHistorical Commentary on Arrian’sHistory of Alexander. II– Commentary on Books IV–V. Oxford. Bosworth, A.B. 2002: The Legacy of Alexander. Politics, Warfare, and Propaganda under the Successors. Oxford. Bosworth, A.B. 2003: The Legacy of Philip. In: Worthington ed. 2003, 28–41. Briant, P.1979: Des Achéménides aux rois hellénistiques, continuités et ruptures. Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa, Classe di Lettere e Filosofia 9, 1375–1414. Briant, P.1982a: Conquête territoriale et conquête idéologique. In: P.Briant (ed.): Rois, Tributes et paysans. Études sur les Formations Tributaires du Moyen-Orient Ancient. Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 269. Paris, 357–403. Briant, P.1982b: Des Achéménides aux rois hellénistiques. In: P.Briant (ed.): Rois, Tributes et paysans. Études sur les Formations Tributaires du Moyen-Orient Ancient. Paris, 291–330. Briant, P.2002a: From Cyrus to Alexander. AHistory of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake. Briant, P.2002b: History and Ideology: the Greeks and the ‘Persian Decadence’. In: T. Harrison (ed.): Greeks and Barbarians. Edinburgh, 193–210. Briant, P.2009: The Empire of Darius in Perspective. In: W. Heckle– L.A. Trittle (eds.): Alexander the Great. ANew Story. Oxford, 141–170. Brice, L.L. 2015: Military Unrest in the Age of Philip and Alexander. In: T. Howe– E.E. Garvin– G. Wrightson (eds.): Greece, Macedon, and Persia. Studies in Social, Political and Military History in Honour of Waldemar Heckel. Oxford, 69–76. Brosius, M. 2003: Alexander and the Persians. In: Roisman ed. 2003, 169–193. Brunt, P.A. 1963: Alexander’sMacedonian Cavalry. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 83, 27–46. Brunt, P.A. 2003: The Aims of Alexander. In: Worthington ed. 2003, 45–53. 100 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 Callieri, P.2004: IndiaIII. Political and Cultural relations– Achaemenid Period. Encyclopaedia Iranica XIII/1. New York, 10–13. Carney, E.D. 2000: Women and monarchy in Macedonia. Norman. Carney, E.D. 2015: King and Court in Ancient Macedonia. Rivalry, Treason, and Conspiracy. Swansea. Collins, A.W. 2008: The Transformation of Alexander’sCourt. The Kingship, Royal Insignia and Eastern Court Personnel of Alexander the Great. Unpublished disertation. University of Otago. Dunedin. Collins, A.W. 2012: The Royal Costume and Insignia of Alexander the Great. The American Journal of Philology 133/3, 371–402. De Mauriac, H.M. 1949: Alexander the Great and the Politics of ‘Homonoia’. Journal of the History of Ideas 10, 104–114. Degen, J. 2019: AlexanderIII., DareiosI. und das speererworbene Land (Diod. 17, 17, 2). Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 6, 53–95. Droysen, J.G. 1880: Geschichte Alexanders der Großen. Gotha. Flower, M. 2000: Alexander the Great and Panhellenism. In: A.B. Bosworth– E.J. Baynham (eds.): Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford, 96–135. Fraser, P.M. 1996: Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Fredricksmeyer, E. 2003: Alexander’sReligion and Divinity. In: Roisman ed. 2003, 253–278. Fulínska, A. 2016: The Great, son of the Great. Alexander– son of Darius? In: Nawotka– Wojciechowska eds. 2016, 223–244. Fuller, J.F.C. 1958: The Generalship of Alexander the Great. London. Gilley, D.L.– Worthington, I. 2010: Alexander the Great, Macedon and Asia. In: Roisman– Worthington eds. 2012, 186–207. Goukowsky, P.1978: Essais sur les origines du mythe d’Alexandre (336–270 a.v. J-C) I. Nancy. Grainger, J.D. 2007: Alexander the Great Failure. The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire. New York. Green, P.1971: Alexander the Great. London. Greenwalt, W. 2010: Argead Dunasteia during the Reigns of Philip II and AlexanderIII. Aristotle Reconsidered. In: E. Carney– D. Ogden (eds.): Philip II and Alexander the Great. Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives. Oxford, 151–163. Greenwalt, W. 2015: Infantry and the evolution of Argead Macedonia. In: T. Howe– E.E. Garvin– G. Wrightson (eds.): Greece, Macedon and Persia. Oxford– Overtown PA, 41–46. Griffith, G.T. 1963: ANote on the Hipparchies of Alexander. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 83, 68–74. Hammond, N.G.L. 1981: Alexander the Great. King, Commander and Statesman. London. Hammond, N.G.L. 1983: The text and the meaning of Arr. VII. 6. 2–5. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 103, 139–144. Hammond, N.G.L. 1986: The Kingdom of Asia and the Persian Throne. Antichthon 20, 73–85. Hammond, N.G.L. 1990: Royal Pages, Personal Pages, and Boys trained in the Macedonian manner during the period of the Temenid Monarchy. Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 39, 261–290. Hammond, N.G.L. 1997: The Genius of Alexander the Great. London. Hammond, N.G.L. 2000: The Continuity of Macedonian Institutions and the Macedonian Kingdoms in the Hellenistic Era. Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 49, 141–160. Harrison, T. 2004: Mastering the Landscape. Electrum 8, 27–33. Heckel, W. 1997: Resistance to Alexander the Great. In: L.A. Tritle (ed.): The Greek World in the Fourth Century. From the fall of the Athenian Empire to the successors of Alexander. London– New York, 189–227. Heckel, W. 2006: Who’swho in the age of Alexander the Great. Prosopography of Alexander’sempire. Malden MA– Oxford. Heckel, W. 2008: The Conquests of Alexander the Great. New York. Heisserer, A.J. 1980: Alexander the Great and the Greeks. The Epigraphic Evidence. Norman. Henkelman, W.F.M. 2008: The other gods who are. Studies in Elamite-Iranian acculturation based on the Persepolis Fortification tablets. Achaemenid History 14, 427–452. 101GUENDALINAD.M. TAIETTI Holt, F. 2005: Into the Land of Bones. Alexander the Great in Afghanistan. Berkeley– Los Angeles– London. Howe, T. 2015: Introducing Ptolemy. Alexander and the Persian Gates. In: W. Heckel– S. Müller– G. Wrightson (eds.): The Many Faces of War in the Ancient World. Cambridge, 166–195. Howe, T. 2016: Alexander’s‘Afghan Insurgency’: areassessment. In: T. Howe– L. Brice (eds.): Brill’sCompanion to Insurgency and Terrorism in the Ancient Mediterranean. Leiden– Boston, 151–182. Howe, T. 2020: Friendship is Golden. Harpalos, Athens and Alexander’s‘Persian’ Relationships. In: M. D’Agostini– E.M. Anson– F. Pownall (eds.): Affective Relations and Personal Bonds in Hellenistic Antiquity. Studies in honor of ElizabethD. Carney. Oxford, 195–212. Howe, T.– Müller, S. 2012: Mission Accomplished. Alexander at the Hyphasis. The Ancient History Bulletin 26, 21–38. King, C. 2010: Macedonian Kingship and other political institutions. In: Roisman– Worthington eds. 2012, 373–391. Kingsley, K.S. 2018: Justifying Violence in Herodotus’ Histories 3.38: Nomos, King of All, and Pindaric Poetics. In: E. Bowie (ed.): Herodotus– Narrator, Scientist, Historian. Berlin– Boston, 37–58. Koulakiotis, E. 2008: Ο Αλέξανδρος και οι ‘Βάρβαροι’. Η Διαφορετικότητα στο Χρόνο A, 15–32. Kuhrt, A. 2007: The Persian Empire. ACorpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London. Lane Fox, R.2007: Alexander the Great: ‘Last of Achaemenids’? In: C. Tuplin (ed.): Persian Responses, Political and Cultural Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire. Swansea, 267–311. Lane Fox, R.2016: Alexander and Babylon. ASubstitute King? In: Nawotka– Wojciechowska eds. 2016, 103–116. Lecoq, P.1997: Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide. Traduit du vieux perse, de l’élamite, du babylonien et de l’araméen (L’aube des peuples). Paris. Lenfant, D. 2001: La ‘décadence’ du Grand Roi et les ambitions du Cyrus le Jeune. Aux sources perses d’un mythe occidental? Revue des Études Grecque 114, 407–438. Matarese, C. 2013: Proskynesis and the Gesture of the Kiss at Alexander’sCourt. The Creation of anew Élite. Palamedes 8, 75–85. Mavrojannis, T. 2017: Alexander the Great ‘King of Asia’ at Arbela and Babylon in October 331 BC.His Ecumenical Macedonian– Persian Ideology. Geographia Antiqua 26, 121–150. Milns, R.D. 1999: The Effects of Alexander’sCampaigns on Food Prices. Αρχαία Μακεδονία / Ancient Macedonia VI/2. Papers Read at the Sixth International Symposium, Thessaloniki, October 15–19, 1996. Thessaloniki, 763–769. Mitchell, L. 2007: Panhellenism and the Barbarian in Archaic and Classical Greece. Swansea. Mullen, J. 2018: Beyond Persianization. The Adoption of Near Eastern Tradition by Alexander the Great. In: K.R. Moore (ed.): Brill’sCompanion to the Reception of Alexander the Great. Leiden– Boston, 233–253. Müller, S. 2015: AHistory of Misunderstandings? Macedonian Politics and Persian Prototypes in Greek Polis-Centered Perspective. In: R. Rollinger– E. van Dongen (eds.): Mesopotamia in the Ancient World. Impact, Continuities, Parallels. Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium of the Melammu Project. Obergurgl, Austria, November 4–8, 2013. Melammu Symposia 13. Münster, 459–480. Müller, S. 2019: Alexander der Große. Eroberungen– Politik– Rezeption. Stuttgart. Nagle, D.B. 1996: The Cultural Context of Alexander’sspeech at Opis. Transaction of the American Philological Association 126, 151–172. Nawotka, K.– Wojciechowska, A. eds. 2016: Alexander the Great and the East. History, Art, Tradition. Wiesbaden. Noegel, S.B. 2007: Greek Religion and the Ancient Near East. In: D. Ogden (ed.): ACompanion to Greek Religion. Malden MA, 21–37. O’Brien, J.M. 1994: Alexander the Great: the invisible enemy. Abiography. London– New York. 102 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 Olbrycht, M. 2008: Curtius Rufus, the Macedonian Mutiny at Opis and Alexander’sIranian Policy in 324 BC.In: J. Pigoń (ed.): The Children of Herodotus. Greek and Roman Historiography and Related Genres. Newcastle Upon Tyne, 231–252. Olbrycht, M. 2010: Macedonia and Persia. In: Roisman– Worthington eds. 2012, 342–369. Olbrycht, M. 2014: ‘An Admirer of Persian Ways’. Alexander the Great’sReforms in Parthia–Hyrcania and the Iranian Heritage. In: T. Daryaee– A. Mousavi– K. Rezakhar (eds.): Excavating an Empire. Achaemenid Persia in the Long Durée. Costa Mesa, 37–62. Olbrycht, M. 2015: The Epigonoi– the Iranian Phalanx of Alexander the Great. In: W. Heckel– S. Müller– G. Wrightson (eds.): The Many Faces of War in the Ancient World. Newcastle upon Tyne, 196–212. Olbrycht, M. 2017: Parthia, Bactria and India. The Iranian Policies of Alexander of Macedonia (330–323). In: C. Antonetti– P.Biagi (eds.): With Alexander in India and Central Asia. Moving East and back to West. Oxford, 194–209. Pearson, L. 1955: The Diary and the Letters of Alexander the Great. Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 3, 429–455. Pearson, L. 1960: The Lost Stories of Alexander the Great. New York– Oxford. Pfeiffer, S. 2014: Alexander der Große in Ägypten. Überlegungen zur Frage seiner pharaonischen Legitimation. In: V. Grieb– K. Nawotka– A. Wojciechowska (eds.): Alexander the Great and Egypt: History, Art, Tradition. Wiesbaden, 89–106. Pownall, F. 2020: Liberation Propaganda as aLegitimizing Principle in Warfare. Dionysius Ias an Antecedant to Philip and Alexander of Macedon. In: K. Ruffing– K. Dross-Krüpe– S. Fink– R. Rollinger (eds.): Societies at War. Proceedings of the tenth Symposium of the Melammu Project, Kassel, September 26–28, 2016 and of the eight Symposium of the Melammu Project, Kiel, November 11–15, 2014. Melammu Symposia 10. Wien, 199–217. Redfield, J. 2002: Herodotus the Tourist. In: T. Harrison (ed.): Greeks and Barbarians. Edinburgh, 24–49. Richardson, W.P.2019: Dual Leadership in the League of Corinth and Antipater’sPhantom Hegemony. The Ancient History Bulletin 33/1-2, 42–59. Robinson, C.A. 1949: Alexander the Great and the Oecumene. In: Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear. Athens, 299–304. Roisman, J. ed. 2003: Brill’sCompanion to Alexander the Great. Leiden– Boston. Roisman, J. 2012: Alexander’sVeterans and the Early Wars of the Successors. Austin. Roisman, J.– Worthington, I. eds. 2012: ACompanion to Ancient Macedonia. New York. Rollinger, R.2014a: Aornos and the Mountains of the East. The Assyrian Kings and Alexander the Great. In: S. Gaspaetal. (eds.): From Source to History. Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond. Dedicated to G.B. Lanfranchi. Münster, 597–635. Rollinger, R.2014b: Das teispidisch-achämenidische Großreich. Ein ‘Imperium’ avant la lettre? In: M. Gehler– R. Rollingeretal. (eds.): Imperien in der Weltgeschichte. Epochenübergreifende und globalhistorische Vergleiche. Wiesbaden, 149–192. Rollinger, R.– Degen, J.– Gehler, M. 2020: Approaching short-termed empires in world history, afirst attempt. In: R. Rollinger– J. Degen– M. Gehler (eds.): Short-term Empires in World History. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Short-termed Empires in World History. Decapitated or Defective?’ Blankenheim in der Eifel, June 21–23, 2017. New York, 1–21. Rood, T. 2006: Herodotus and Foreign Lands. In: C. Dewald– J. Marincola (eds.): The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Cambridge, 290–305. Schachermeyr, F. 1954: Die letzten Pläne Alexanders der Grossen. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 41, 118–140. Spawforth, A.J.S. 2012: The Pamphleteer Ephippus, King Alexander and the Persian Royal Hunt. Histos 6, 169–213. Squillace, G. 2004: Basileis otyrannoi. Filippo II e Alessandro Magno tra opposizione e consenso. Vibo Valentia. 103GUENDALINAD.M. TAIETTI Squillace, G. 2010: Consensus and Strategies under Philip and Alexander. In: C. Carney– D. Ogden (eds.): Philip and Alexander the Great. Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives. Oxford, 69–80. Squillace, G. 2015: The Comparison between Alexander and Philip. Use and Metamorphosis of an Ideological Theme. In: T. Howe– E.E. Garvin– G. Wrightson (eds.): Greece, Macedon and Persia. Oxford– Havertown PA, 107–113. Stewart, A. 1993: Faces of Power. Alexander the Great and Hellenistic Politics. Berkley– Los Angeles– Oxford. Stoneman, R.2019: The Greek Experience of India. From Alexander to the Indo-Greeks. Princeton– Oxford. Strootman, R.2007: The Hellenistic Royal Court. Court Culture, Ceremonial and Ideology in Greece, Egypt and the Near East, 336–30 BCE. Dissertation. Universiteit Utrecht. Utrecht. Taietti, G.D.M. 2016: Alexander the Great as aHerodotean Persian King. In: Nawotka– Wojciechowska eds. 2016, 159–178. Taietti, G.D.M. in print: Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Kingship. In: B. Antela Bernárdez– M. Mendoza (eds.): The Impact of Alexander’sConquests. Madrid. Tarn, W.W. 1948: Alexander the Great. I– Narrative. II– Sources and Studies. Cambridge. Thomas, C.G. 1968: Alexander the Great and the unity of mankind. The Classical Journal 63, 258–260. Thonemann, P.2012: Alexander, Priene, and Naulochon. In: P.Martzavou– N. Papazarkadas (eds.): Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-Classical Polis. Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD. Oxford, 23–36. Tuplin, C. 1990: Persian Décor in Cyropaedia: some observations. In: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg– J.W. Drijvers (eds.): Achaemenid History. V– The Roots of the European Tradition. Proceedings of the 1987 Groningen Achaemenid History Workshop. Leiden, 17–29. Tuplin, C. 1998: The seasonal migration of Achaemenid Kings. Areport on old and new evidence. In: M. Brosius– A. Kuhrt (eds.): Studies in Persian History. Essays in memory of DavidM. Lewis. Leiden, 63–114. van der Spek, R.J. 2003: Darius III, Alexander the Great, and Babylonian Scholarship. In: W. Henkelman– A. Kuhrt (eds.): APersian Perspective. Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg. Leiden, 289–346. Wallace, S. 2016: The Rescript of Philip III Arrhidaios and the Two Tyrannies of Eresos. Tyche. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, Papyrologie und Epigraphik 31, 239–258. Wallace, S. 2018: Alexander the Great and Democracy in the Hellenistic World. In: M. Canevaro– B. Gray (eds.): The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Democracy and Political Thought. Oxford, 45–72. Weber, G. 2009: The Court of Alexander the Great as Social System. In: W. Heckel– L.A. Tritle (eds.): Alexander the Great. ANew Story. Oxford, 83–98. Wiemer, H.-U. 2007: Alexander– der letzte Achaimenide? Eroberungspolitik, lokale Eliten und altorientalische Traditionen im Jahr 323. Historische Zeitschrift 284, 281–309. Wiemer, H.-U. 2011: Geld, Gott oder Tyrann? Alexander der Grosse im Frühen Hellenismus. Hermes 139/2, 179–204. Wiesehöfer, J. 1994/2001: Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD. London. First published in Zürich– München 1994, Transl. A. Azodi. Wiesehöfer, J. 2016: Alexander’s‘Policy of Fusion’ and German Ancient History between 1933 and 1945. In: Nawotka– Wojciechowska eds. 2016, 355–362. Wiesehöfer, J. 2017: The Persian Impact on Macedonia. Three Case Studies. In: S. Müller– T. Howe– H. Bowden– R. Rollinger (eds.): The History of the Argeads. New Perspectives. Wiesbaden, 57–64. Worthington, I. 1999: How ‘Great’ was Alexander? The Ancient History Bulletin 13/2, 39–55. Worthington, I. 2003: Alexander, Philip, and the Macedonian Background. In: Roisman ed. 2003, 69–98. Worthington, I. ed. 2003: Alexander the Great. AReader. London– New York. Wüst, F.R.1953: Die Rede Alexanders des Grossen in Opis, ArrianVII. 9–10. Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 2/2, 177–188. Wüst, F.R.1954: Die Meuterei von Opis, Arrian VII 8; 11. 1–7. Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 2/4, 418–431. 104 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/1 Xydopoulos, I. 2007: Alexander’sHistorians and the Alexander Romance. AComparative Study of the Representation of India and Indians. In: H. Prabha Ray– D.T. Potts (eds.): Memory as History. The Legacy of Alexander in Asia. New Delhi, 19–27. Yakoubovitch, Y. 2016: The East in Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri Magni. AParadoxical Reversion of Standards. In: Nawotka– Wojciechowska eds. 2016, 193–212. GuendalinaD.M. Taietti University of Liverpool ACE –Classics and Ancient History 12 Abercromby Square Liverpool L69 7WZ, UK [email protected]