12

Alexander:
T H E ‘ G R E AT ’ ?

Introduction
Alexander III is called ‘Great’ for many reasons: in little more than a decade he journeyed
further than any single person before him (on distances, see Sources 1, 36, 37; cf. 60),
he defeated opposing forces on a vast scale, he established a huge empire which stretched
from Greece in the west to India in the east, he spread Greek culture and education in
that empire, he stimulated trade and the economy, he died young (Source 84), and had
he lived he would have embarked on a campaign to Arabia. Even the Romans (apparently)
sent an embassy to him in recognition of his achievements and stature (Sources 12 and
115). There is no question that Alexander was a brilliant general, strategist and tactician;
however, he was not merely a general; he was also a king. As such, it is necessary to
consider the entire ‘package’ of him as king, general and statesman. When we do so, we
see there is a downside to Alexander’s reign and to him as a man, aspects of which have
been outlined in the works of some modern scholars in the preceding chapters, and that
there is a great difference between the mythical Alexander, in other words the image we
have today, and the historical.
In part, the mythical Alexander is due to the nature of our source material and
Alexander’s own propaganda, which make any objective evaluation of him difficult (cf.
Source 1).1 At the same time, there has been a tendency to accept the ‘greatness’ of
Alexander at face value because of what he achieved in the military sphere or was said to
have done. As has been said, Alexander’s military abilities are beyond question,2 yet let
us not forget that his army mutinied on him twice (cf. Source 76), that his march
through the Gedrosian desert was a dreadful and costly mistake (Sources 77–80), and
that he often put himself in peril without thought as to who would lead his army were
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

he to die (Sources 11, 23, 70 and 71) – and certainly the Macedonians made it plain that
they needed Alexander as leader in the Far East (cf. Arr. 6.12.1–3). His preference for
constant warfare rather than long-term administration and his failure to provide an heir
resulted in confusion as to his successor (cf. Source 93 – who was ‘the best’?), and his
empire exploding on his death in 323 in a three-decades long bloody civil war waged by
his generals. The Macedonian throne in that time became a prize in the wars of his
successors, and stability was not restored to it until the Antigonid dynasty firmly took
root in the 280s.
Conspiracies were hatched either against Alexander by others or by him because of
his paranoia,3 and he was held in fear by those with him (Source 105). There was reaction
against him among his people on the mainland, especially over his megalomania that
led to his belief in his own divinity.4 Alexander’s excessive drinking not only wasted his

391

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

body but also clouded his reason on occasions (Sources 59, 85–90, 117–119), and it was
a criticism levelled against him by a contemporary author (see Source 117). At the same
time, it must be said that Alexander was never incapacitated by alcohol when it
mattered, such as in battle or indeed planning campaigns. He drank copiously at
symposia and other parties, but it was acceptable to do so at such gatherings. Yet it was
alcohol that led to his murdering Cleitus. As a man, let alone a king, Alexander can thus
be found failing to live up to any heroic ideal or code of honour as exemplified by those
on whom he modelled himself.
The question is raised whether Alexander knew anything else but conquering, in
itself echoing what Quintus Curtius Rufus at 6.2.1 writes: ‘Alexander could cope better
with warfare than peace and leisure’. This might not be completely true, as it has been
shown (in Chapter 6) that Alexander was concerned with the administration of his
empire. However, his thirst for fighting and ambition were continuous (cf. Source 116),
and he showed no sign of bringing his campaigning to an end, for he was prepared to
invade Arabia when he died (cf. Sources 106 and 116). With the new army that he had
created and new sights that he was setting himself, one wonders if he would have ever
stopped, and how different Macedonian kingship would become from what it was
traditionally. Perhaps it is hardly a surprise that the empire he created came to a end,
and not just because Alexander did not properly provide an heir for it. Macedonia
became a shadow of its former self, a stark contrast to how Philip had left it for his son
in 336. Hence the legacies of Philip and of Alexander must be borne in mind in any
assessment of Alexander as king,5 and a question that a modern scholar posed should be
considered carefully: was Alexander ‘his own greatest achievement’?6

Ancient sources
Alexandria
114  In his desire to overtake Darius he started in his pursuit. But again he came to
Egypt and saw a site naturally suited for the erection of a city. He wanted to build one;
at once he ordered his architects to trace the circuit of the city to be founded. But as they
had no clay to do so, he happened to see a threshing-floor with wheat on it and ordered
them to place the grains around and use them instead of clay in marking he circuit.
They did so. The following night fowls came and picked up the grain. This seemed to
be a sign: some said it portended ill (the city to be founded would be captured);
Alexander however said it was a good omen (though it was made clear that many would
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

be fed by that city) and at once built a large city there, which he called Alexandria, after
his own name. Then he advanced in pursuit of Darius (Anonymous History of Alexander,
FGrH 151 F 11).

Alexander and Rome’s greatness

115  Of the men who have written the history of Alexander, Aristus and Asclepiades
alone say that the Romans also sent an embassy to him, and that when he met their
embassy, he predicted something of the future power of Rome, observing both the attire
of the men, their love of labour, and their devotion to freedom. At the same time, he
made urgent enquiries about their political constitution. This incident I have recorded
neither as certainly authentic nor as altogether incredible; but none of the Roman

392

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

writers have made any mention of this embassy … nor of those who have written an
account of Alexander’s actions, has either Ptolemy, son of Lagus (FGrH 138 F 29), or
Aristobulus (FGrH 139 F 53) mentioned it (Aristus, FGrH 143 F 2 = Arr. 7.15.5).7

‘Insatiably ambitious’?
116  Aristobulus says that he found at Babylon the fleet with Nearchus, which had
sailed from the Persian Sea up the river Euphrates; and another which had been
conveyed from Phoenicia … Near Babylon he made a harbour by excavation large
enough to afford anchorage to 1,000 ships of war; and adjoining the harbour he made
dock-yards. Miccalus the Clazomenian was despatched to Phoenicia and Syria with
500 talents to enlist some men and to purchase others who were experienced in naval
matters. For Alexander designed to colonize the seaboard near the Persian Gulf, as
well as the islands in that sea. For he thought that this land would become no less
prosperous than Phoenicia. He made these preparations of the fleet to attack the main
body of the Arabs, under the pretext that they were the only barbarians of this region
who had not sent an embassy to him or done anything becoming their position and
showing respect to him. But the truth was, it seems to me, that Alexander was
insatiably ambitious of ever acquiring fresh territory (Aristobulus, FGrH 139 F 55 =
Arr. 7.19.3–6).

‘The things … that are not good’?

117 The things about Alexander that are not good. They say that on the fifth of the
month Dius he drank at Eumaeus’, then on the sixth he slept from the drinking; and as
much of that day as he was fresh, rising up, he did business with the officers about the
morrow’s journey, saying that it would be early. And on the seventh he was a guest at
Perdiccas’ and drank again; and on the eighth he slept. On the fifteenth of the same
month he also slept, and on the following day he did the things customary after drinking.
On the twenty-fourth he dined at Bagoas’; the house of Bagoas was ten stades from the
palace; the on the twenty-eighth he was at rest. Accordingly one of two conclusions
must be true, either that Alexander hurt himself badly by drinking so many days in the
month or that those who wrote these things lie. And so it is possible to keep in mind
henceforth that the group of which Eumenes is a member … makes such statements
(Ephemerides, FGrH 117 F 2a = Aelian, Varra Historia 3.23).
118  Alexander also drank a very great deal, so that after the spree he would sleep
continuously for two days and two nights. This is revealed in his Ephemerides written by
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

Eumenes of Cardia and Diodotus of Erythrae (Ephemerides, FGrH 117 F 2b = Athen.

10.434b).8
119  Aristobulus does not say whence the drunken quarrel originated, but asserts
that the fault was entirely on the side of Cleitus, who, when Alexander had got so
enraged with him as to jump up against him with the intention of making an end of
him, was led away by Ptolemy, son of Lagus, the confidential bodyguard, through the
gateway, beyond the wall and ditch of the citadel where the quarrel occurred. He adds
that Cleitus could not control himself, but went back again, and falling in with
Alexander who was calling out for Cleitus, he exclaimed: ‘Alexander, here am I,
Cleitus!’ Thereupon he was struck with a long pike and killed (Aristobulus, FGrH
139 F 29 = Arr. 4.8.9).

393

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

Modern works
In the following selections, the late N.G.L. Hammond, formerly Professor of Greek at
the University of Bristol, lauds Alexander and his achievements, and so gives us the
‘rosy’ image of the king that many people have today. While acknowledging Alexander’s
achievements, Ian Worthington, Professor of History at the University of Missouri,
examines the comparison of Diodorus and Justin on Philip and Alexander, and argues
that they held Philip in higher esteem that Alexander and thought him to be the better
king; as a result, the epithet ‘Great’ gives a false impression of the historical Alexander.

1 N.G.L. Hammond, Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman2 (Bristol
Classical Press: 1989), pp. 269–273 and 306 (notes).9
2 Ian Worthington, ‘Worldwide Empire vs Glorious Enterprise: Diodorus and Justin
on Philip II and Alexander the Great’, in E.D. Carney and D. Ogden (eds), Philip II
and Alexander the Great: Lives and Afterlives (Oxford University Press: 2010), pp.
165–174 (notes on pp. 289–291).10

Additional reading
J.E. Atkinson, ‘On Judging Alexander: A Matter of Honour’, Acta Classica 50 (2007),
pp. 15–27.
E. Badian, ‘Alexander the Great and the Loneliness of Power’, in E. Badian, Studies in
Greek and Roman History (Oxford: 1964), pp. 192–205 (reprinted in Chapter 11).
——, ‘Alexander the Great and the Scientific Exploration of the Oriental Part of his
Empire’, Ancient Society 22 (1991), pp. 127–138.
——, ‘Conspiracies’, in A.B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great in
Fact and Fiction (Oxford: 2000), pp. 50–95.
R. Billows, Kings and Colonists (Leiden: 1995), pp. 183–212.
A.B. Bosworth, ‘Alexander the Great and the Decline of Macedon’, Journal of Hellenic
Studies 106 (1986), pp. 1–12.
——, ‘Alexander and the Iranians’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 100 (1980), pp. 1–21
(reprinted in Chapter 9).
——, The Legacy of Alexander. Politics, Warfare and Propaganda under the Successors (Oxford:
2002).
E.D. Carney, ‘The Death of Clitus’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 22 (1981),
pp. 149–160.
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

——, ‘Macedonians and Mutiny: Discipline and Indiscipline in the Army of Philip and
Alexander’, Classical Philology 91 (1996), pp. 19–44.
——, ‘Women in Alexander’s Court’, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Alexander
the Great (Leiden: 2003), pp. 227–252.
E.A. Fredricksmeyer, ‘Alexander’s Religion and Divinity’, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s
Companion to Alexander the Great (Leiden: 2003), Chap. 10, pp. 253–278 (reprinted in
Chapter 10).
D.L. Gilley and Ian Worthington, ‘Alexander the Great, Macedonia and Asia’, in
J. Roisman and Ian Worthington (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Ancient Macedonia
(Oxford: 2010), pp. 186–207.

394

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The Macedonian Imprint on the Hellenistic World’, in P. Green

(ed.), Hellenistic History and Culture (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1993), pp. 12–23.
W. Heckel, ‘King and “Companions”: Observations on the Nature of Power in the
Reign of Alexander’, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great
(Leiden: 2003), pp. 197–225.
——, ‘Alexander the Great and the “Limits of Civilised World”’, in W. Heckel and
L. Tritle (eds), Crossroads of History, The Age of Alexander (Claremont: 2003), pp. 147–
174 (reprinted in Chapter 3).
F.L. Holt, ‘The Hyphasis Mutiny: A Source Study’, Ancient World 5 (1982), pp. 33–59.
——, ‘Alexander the Great Today: In the Interests of Historical Accuracy?’, Ancient
History Bulletin 13.3 (1999), pp. 111–117.
——, ‘The Death of Coenus’, Ancient History Bulletin 14.1–2 (2000), pp. 49–55.
S. Müller, ‘In the Shadow of his Father: Alexander, Hermolaus, and the Legend of
Philip’, in E.D. Carney and D. Ogden (eds), Philip II and Alexander the Great: Lives
and Afterlives (Oxford: 2010), pp. 25–32.
J. Roisman, ‘Honor in Alexander’s Campaigns’, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s Companion to
Alexander the Great (Leiden: 2003), pp. 279–321.
B. Strauss, ‘Alexander: The Military Campaign’, in J. Roisman (ed.), Brill’s Companion
to Alexander the Great (Leiden: 2003), pp. 133–156.
L. Tritle, ‘Alexander and the Killing of Cleitus the Black’, in W. Heckel and L.A. Tritle
(eds), Crossroads of History. The Age of Alexander (Claremont: 2003), pp. 127–146.
C.B. Welles, ‘Alexander’s Historical Achievement’, Greece and Rome2 12 (1965),
pp. 216–228.
Ian Worthington, ‘How “Great” was Alexander?’, Ancient History Bulletin 13.2 (1999),
pp. 39–55.
——, ‘Alexander the Great and the “Interests of Historical Accuracy”: A Reply’, Ancient
History Bulletin 13.4 (1999), pp. 136–140.
——, ‘Alexander the Great, Nation-building, and the Creation and Maintenance of
Empire’, in V.D. Hanson (ed.), Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the
Fall of Rome (Princeton: 2010), pp. 118–137 (reprinted in Chapter 6).

Notes
 1 On the sources and the problems associated with the source material, see Chapter 1.
 2 See Chapter 4.
 3 See Chapter 11 on conspiracies.
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

 4 See Chapter 10.

 5 On Philip, see Chapter 2. On legacies and differences, cf. Ian Worthington, Philip II of Macedonia
(New Haven and London: 2008), pp. 194–208, and the reprinted articles below.
  6 C.B. Welles, ‘Alexander’s Historical Achievement’, G&R2 12 (1965), p. 228.
  7 See also Source 12, where an embassy from Rome is queried.
  8 On Alexander’s drinking, see also Sources 85–90 and 117–119.
  9 Reprinted by permission of Bloomsbury.
10 Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

395

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

A S A P E R SO N A L IT Y

N.G.L. Hammond

Ancient and modern writers have studied various aspects of Alexander’s personality. His
sexual life, for instance, has been the subject of wild speculation. Some have supposed
that his closeness to his mother and his continence in the presence of Darius’ mother,
wife, and daughters were signs of sexual impotence; others just the opposite, that he
travelled with a harem which provided him with a different girl each night of the year;
and others that he had homosexual affairs with herds of eunuchs, Hephaestion, Hector,
and a Persian boy. The truth is not attainable nor of much importance; for in the
Macedonian court homosexual and heterosexual attachments were equally reputable,
and the sexual life of Philip, for instance, seems to have had no effect on his achievements
in war and politics. Disappointingly for sensationalist writers Alexander’s relations with
women seem to have been normal enough for a Macedonian king: three or four wives at
the age of thirty-two and two or perhaps three sons – Heracles by Barsine, widow of the
Rhodian Memnon and daughter of the Persian Artabazus (P. 21.7–9 and Plut. Eum. 1
fin.; C. 10.6.11–13; J. 13.2.7; Suidas s.v. Antipatros); by the Bactrian Roxane a boy who
died in infancy (Epit. Metz 70) and a boy born after Alexander’s death, who became
Alexander IV.1
Alexander’s relations with his parents have been interpreted in differing ways. Some
have held him guilty of patricide, planned in advance with the connivance of his mother;
others have pictured him publicly disowning his ‘so-called father,’ Philip; and others
have made him praise the services of Philip to his country and plan to raise a gigantic
memorial over Philip’s tomb. If we consider these matters from the viewpoint not of the
twentieth century but of the fourth century BC, we should note that patricide, being the
most heinous crime in Greek religion, was hardly conceivable in a man of strong
religious faith; that to believe one was the son of a god was not to disown one’s human
father (whether Amphitryon or Joseph); and that praise of Philip was natural in every
Macedonian and not least in the successor to his throne. Indeed if the first unplundered
tomb at Vergina is that of Philip, as I believe, its unparalleled splendour is a measure of
Alexander’s affection for and admiration of his father. He was always loving and loyal to
his mother, Olympias. Her tears meant more to him than any triumph, and in taking
her side he endangered his own chances of the succession to the throne. When he went
to Asia, he made her guardian of the kingship and his representative in the performance
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

of state religion and ceremon­ial in Macedonia, and he sent to her, partly in that capacity,
his regular despatches and a part of the spoils of war. As son and king, he seems to have
had full control over her.2
In the course of the narrative we have described many facets of Alexander’s person­
ality: his deep affections, his strong emotions, his reckless courage, his brilliance and
quickness of mind, his intellectual curiosity, his love of glory, his competitive spirit, his
acceptance of every challenge, his generosity and his compassion; and on the other hand
his overweening ambition, his remorseless will, his passionate indulgence in unrestrained
emotion, his inexorable persistence, and his readiness to kill in combat, in passion, and
in cold blood and to have rebellious communities destroyed. In brief, he had many of
the qualities of the noble savage. What is left to consider is the mainspring of his
personality, his religious sense. The background is essential. Members of the Macedonian

396

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

royal house worshipped the Olympian gods of orthodox Greek religion in the orthodox
way; participated in the ecstatic religions of Orpheus, Dionysus, and the Cabiri (in
Samothrace); consulted oracles, apparently with credulity, for instance of Zeus Ammon
at Aphytis in Chalcidice, Apollo at Delphi, and Trophonius at Lebadea in Boeotia; and
believed in omens and their interpreters. Further, they had at Aegeae and Pella their
particular worship of Heracles Patroüs as their heroic ancestor and semidivine exemplar;
for Heracles himself was a ‘son of god,’ even of Zeus.
To emulate, even to surpass his father Philip, or the conquering prototype, Cyrus the
Great; to rival the journeys and achievements of Heracles and Dionysus; and in his turn
to win ‘divine honours’, was probably Alexander’s youthful ambition. Europe had been
the scene of Philip’s triumphs, and Italy was to be invaded by the Molossian Alexander;
so Asia was the continent for Alexander. But would the gods give it to him? As he
landed in the Troad Alexander gave expression to his faith: ‘from the gods I accept Asia,
won by the spear.’ He reaffirmed this after his victory at Gaugamela, when he dedicated
spoils as ‘Lord of Asia’ in thanksgiving to Athena of Lindus and wrote to Darius, ‘the
gods give Asia to me.’ And in the end he was to see himself, and others – even the
remote Libyans – were to see him as ‘King of all Asia’ (A. 7.15.4; Ind. 35.8).
But in 334 BC, he must have asked himself whether he was indeed a ‘son of god,’ capable
of such heroic achievement. The answers came unambiguously from oracles and priests in
whose words he had belief: in 332 BC the priests of Egypt greeted him as ‘Son of Ra’; the
priest of Ammon at Siwah probably led him and certainly led others to think he was ‘Son
of Ammon,’ and then the shrines of Didyma and Erythrae declared him to be a ‘Son of
Zeus.’ It was tempting to put such faith to the test, and his prayer at Gaugamela did so.
The victory there reassured him that he was indeed ‘descended from Zeus.’
Many signs and wonders – some self-evident, others interpreted by seers – showed
that the gods were on his side. There is no doubt that he and his men believed in them
implicitly. We must remember that Alexander’s preferred readings were the Iliad, the
plays of the three great tragedians, and dithyrambic poetry, in all of which the gods
revealed their purposes to men in a variety of ways – signs and wonders being among
them.3 Of those which happened to Alexander Arrian, drawing on Ptolemy and
Aristobulus, mentions the following: the swallow at Halicarnassus, the knot at Gordium
untied by the future ‘ruler of Asia,’ the thunder and lightning there, the dream before
the attack on Tyre, the bird of prey at Gaza, the grain marking the bounds of Alexandria,
the rain and the crows on the way to Siwah, the soaring eagle at Gaugamela, the adverse
omen at the Jaxartes, the Syrian clairvoyant in Bactria, the springs of oil and water by
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

the Oxus, and the oracle of Belus (Ba’al) before the entry into Babylon (A. 7.16.5–17.6).
Even when death was overshadowing him Alexander might have said, like old Oedipus,
‘in all the signs the gods themselves have given me, they never played me false.’
The gods were the authors also of all success in the opinion of Alexander (Plut. Mor.
343B), and to them he gave the credit and the thanks. He was constantly engaged in
religious acts; he sacrificed every morning of his adult life, on any evening of carousal
with his Companions, on starting any enterprise, crossing any river, entering battle,
celebrating victory, and expressing gratitude. He was more self-effacing in his devout­
ness than his father. For example, whereas Philip had portrayed himself on his coins
taking the salute, probably at a victory parade, and advertising his successes at the
Olympic games, Alexander showed gods only on his regular coin issues. In the famous
sculptures of Alexander by Lysippus he was represented with a melting and liquid

397

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

softness of the eyes ‘looking up towards the heavens,’ and this was interpreted at the
time as looking up towards Zeus, from whom his inspiration came. In his early years,
for instance on landing in Asia, he paid special honour to Athena Alcidemus (the
Macedonian war-goddess who protected Philip and Alexander according to Pliny NH
35.114),4 Zeus the King (‘of gods and men’) and Heracles, ancestor of the royal house;
and throughout his reign he showed them, and them alone, on his gold and silver coins.
It is only on the Porus medallion that the figure of Alexander appeared: diminu­tive in a
symbolic combat. On the reverse his face is not thrown into relief. [. . .]
After the pilgrimage to Siwah he put Zeus Ammon, or Ammon of the Libyans (in
contrast to Ammon at Aphytis), or just Ammon on the same level as Athena, Zeus, and
Heracles in his regard; for instance, on meeting Nearchus he called to witness ‘Zeus of
the Greeks’ and ‘Ammon of the Libyans’ (Ind. 35.8). The thunderbolt which is carried
by Alexander on the Porus medallion was probably the weapon of Zeus Ammon, with
which he had armed Alexander to win the Kingdom of Asia. In the paintings by Apelles,
Alexander was portrayed wielding the thunderbolt, probably as King of Asia. It was the
oracle of Zeus Ammon, not an oracle in Greece, that Alexander consulted about the
honouring of Hephaestion, and at the mouth of the Indus, for instance, he made two
sets of sacrifices with the rituals and to the gods prescribed by the oracle of Ammon.
He sacrificed occasionally to other non-Greek deities, such as Tirian Melkart (iden­
tified with Heracles), Apis and Isis in Egypt, and Belus (Ba’al) in Babylon, whose temple
he intended to rebuild. And his readiness to turn to Greek and non-Greek gods alike for
help is shown by his consulting not only Greek seers but also those of Egypt, Persia (the
Magi), and Babylon (the Chaldaeans). It was no doubt because of his faith in these
divine powers that during his last illness Sarapis was consulted; that his corpse was
embalmed by Egyptians and Chaldaeans; and that the ram’s horn, the emblem of
Ammon, was added to the head or Alexander on the coins of Lysimachus. It is evident
that Alexander did not think in terms of his national gods defeating those of other races,
as the Greeks and the Hebrews for instance had done; rather he was ready to accord
respect and worship to the gods of other peoples and to find in some of those gods an
excellence equal to that of the Macedonian and Greek gods.
That Alexander should grow up with a sense of mission was certainly to be expected.
For he was descended from Zeus and Heracles, he was born to be king, he had the career
of Philip as an exemplar, and he was advised by Isocrates, Aristotle, and others to be a
benefactor of Macedonians and Greeks alike. His sense of mission was inevitably steeped
in religious associations, because from an early age he had been associated with the king,
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

his father, in conducting religious ceremonies, and he was imbued with many ideas of
orthodox religion and of ecstatic mysteries. Thus two observations by Plutarch (Mor.
342 A and F) have the ring of truth. ‘This desire (to bring all men into an orderly system
under a single leadership and to accustom them to one way of life) was implanted in
Alexander from childhood and grew up with him’; and on crossing the Hellespont to
the Troad Alexander’s first asset was ‘his reverence towards the gods.’ Already by then
he planned to found a Kingdom of Asia, in which he would rule over the peoples, as
Odysseus had done, ‘like a kindly father’ (Odyssey 5.11). He promoted the fulfilment of
that plan ‘by founding Greek cities among savage peoples and by teaching the principles
of law and peace to lawless, ignorant tribes.’ When he had completed the conquest of
‘Asia’ through the favour of the gods and especially that of Zeus Ammon, he went on to

398

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

establish for all men in his kingdom ‘concord and peace and partnership with one
another’ (Mor. 329 F).
This was a practical development, springing from a religious concept and not from a
philosophical theory (though it led later to the philosophical theory of the Cynics, who
substituted for Asia the whole inhabited world and talked of the brotherhood of all
men), and it came to fruition in the banquet at Opis, when he prayed in the pres­ence of
men of various races for ‘concord and partnership in the ruling’ of his kingdom ‘between
Macedonians and Persians.’
What distinguishes Alexander from all other conquerors is this divine mission. He
had grown up with it, and he had to a great extent fulfilled it, before he gave expres­sion
to it at the banquet at Opis in such words as those reported by Plutarch (Mor. 329 C).
‘Alexander considered,’ wrote Plutarch, ‘that he had come from the gods to be a general
governor and reconciler of the world. Using force of arms when he did not bring men
together by the light of reason, he harnessed all resources to one and the same end,
mixing the lives, manners, marriages and customs of men, as it were in a loving-cup.’
This is his true claim to be called ‘Alexander the Great’: that he did not crush or
dismember his enemies, as the conquering Romans crushed Carthage and Molossia and
dismembered Macedonia into four parts; nor exploit, enslave or destroy the native
peoples, as ‘the white man’ has so often done in America, Africa, and Australasia; but
that he created, albeit for only a few years, a supra-national community capable of living
internally at peace and of developing the concord and partnership which are so sadly
lacking in the modern world.

Notes
1 See the first edition of this volume n. 114 for ancient evidence for and against Alexander being
given to paederasty, which was the normal form of homosexual relationship in Greek antiq­uity
(rather than between consenting adults). Statements about his heterosexual practices varied in
ancient authors from near-impotence to gross excess. Modern authors have indulged in similar
speculations, notably M. Renault, The Nature of Alexander (1975).
2 She probably held the prostasia; see Hammond, A 474 ff. and HM 3.90 f.
3 P. 8.2–3.
4 The head of this Athena was represented on the iron helmet in Philip’s tomb at Vergina; see
M. Andronikos in AAA 10 (1977) 47 and Vergina 141.

References
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

Andronikos, Vergina = M. Andronikos, Vergina: The Royal Tombs (Athens: 1984).

Hammond, A = N.G.L. Hammond, ‘Some passages in Arrian concerning Alexander’, CQ2 30 (1980),
pp. 455–476.
Hammond, HM = N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia 3 (Oxford: 1988).

399

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

‘Worldwide empire’ versus ‘glorious enterprise’:

Diodorus and Justin on P hilip II and
A lexande r t h e Gr e at

Ian Worthington

At the end of his comparison of the good and bad qualities of Philip II and Alexander
III (the Great) of Macedonia, Justin has this to say: Quibus artibus orbis imperii fundamenta
pater iecit, operis totius gloriam filius consummauit – ‘with such qualities did the father lay
the basis for a worldwide empire and the son bring to completion the glorious enterprise’
(9.8.21).1 At first sight the quotation is an apt summary of the key achievements of their
reigns. From disunited chaos, economic ruin, and military weakness, Philip II (r. 359–
36) turned Macedonia into the super-power of the fourth century, established an empire,
created a first-class army (and an engineering corps that pioneered the torsion catapult),
and framed the plans for the invasion of Asia.2 Alexander built on his father’s legacy and
in little over a decade as king (r. 336–23) he brought the planned invasion of Asia to
spectacular fruition. On his death in 323, the Macedonian empire, stretching from
Greece to India (modern Pakistan), was as close to worldwide as one could get in
antiquity.
It is easy to understand why Alexander has come to be the household name he is,
in his time and down to the present day, and why he is the subject of far more books
than Philip (although the paucity of ancient evidence that we have today for Philip,
compared to Alexander, is a factor).3 Philip lives in the shadow of his famous son,
given that he did not wage anything like the spectacular battles and sieges that
Alexander did, and while Philip did more for the actual kingdom of Macedonia than
any of its other kings, he did not oversee a Macedonian empire that was as expansive
as that of Alexander. The difference between the reigns of these two kings is
apparently also reflected in how ancient writers saw them. In the case of Philip, we
have only two narrative sources for his reign, Diodorus (book 16), of the first century
b.c., and Justin (book 7.6–9), himself writing in later imperial times, but who
epitomized Pompeius Trogus’ Historiae Philippicae, which was also written in the first
century b.c.4 Philip is praised for such things as his diplomatic and military skills,
his achievements in Macedonia, and the reorganization of the army, but our ancient
writers seem to wax the more lyrical over Alexander in their narratives of his
reign, principally for his spectacular exploits in Asia, as the opening quotation
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

indicates.5
It is the contention of this paper, however, that the impression that Diodorus and
Justin favor Alexander is a misleading one. It can be argued that Justin’s lengthy
comparison of the two kings (9.8) and Diodorus’ personal comments on Philip (16.95)
and Alexander (17.117) actually elevate Philip over Alexander, not the other way
around. This view has implications about the standards on which they based their
evaluations, especially in light of the Roman perceptions of Alexander at the time when
they were writing, and by extension it further distances Diodorus from being merely a
summarizer of his sources, especially Ephorus.6 Further, it plays a role in how we today
ought to view Philip and Alexander.
I begin with Justin 9.8, a comparison of Philip and Alexander made at the end of his
narrative of Philip’s reign:

400

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

(1) Philip … was a king with more enthusiasm for the military than the
convivial sphere; (5) in his view his greatest treasures were the tools of warfare.
(6) He had a greater talent for acquiring wealth than keeping it, and thus
despite his daily pillaging he was always short of funds. (7) His compassion and
his duplicity were qualities which he prized equally, and no means of gaining a
victory would he consider dishonourable. (8) He was charming and treacherous
at the same time, the type to promise more in conversation than he would
deliver, and whether the discussion was serious or lighthearted he was an artful
performer. (9) He cultivated friendships with a view to expediency rather than
from genuine feelings. His usual practice was to feign warm feelings when he
hated someone, to sow discord between parties that were in agreement and
then try to win the favour of both. (10) Besides this he was possessed of
eloquence and a remarkable oratorical talent, full of subtlety and ingenuity, so
that his elegant style was not lacking fluency nor his fluency lacking stylistic
elegance. (11) Philip was succeeded by his son Alexander, who surpassed his
father both in good qualities and bad. (12) Each had his own method of gaining
victory, Alexander making war openly and Philip using trickery; the latter took
pleasure in duping the enemy, the former in putting them to flight in the open.
(13) Philip was the more prudent strategist, Alexander had the greater vision.
(14) The father could hide, and sometimes even suppress, his anger; when
Alexander’s had flared up, his retaliation could be neither delayed nor kept in
check. (15) Both were excessively fond of drink, but intoxication brought out
different shortcomings. It was the father’s habit to rush from the dinner party
straight at the enemy, engage him in combat and recklessly expose himself to
danger; Alexander’s violence was directed not against the enemy but against his
own comrades. (16) As a result Philip was often brought back from his battles
wounded while the other often left a dinner with his friends’ blood on his
hands. (17) Philip was unwilling to share the royal power with his friends;
Alexander wielded it over his. The father preferred to be loved, the son to be
feared. (18) They had a comparable interest in literature. The father had greater
shrewdness, the son was truer to his word. (19) Philip was more restrained in
his language and discourse, Alexander in his actions. (20) When it came to
showing mercy to the defeated, the son was temperamentally more amenable
and more magnanimous. The father was more disposed to thrift, the son to
extravagance. (21) With such qualities did the father lay the basis for a
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

worldwide empire and the son bring to completion the glorious enterprise.

At a first reading the account gives a generally hostile view of Philip’s character. Justin
views him as a cruel person, deceitful, and beyond shame in his actions, and, further,
says that Philip had no hesitation in plundering and selling into slavery the women and
children of allied cities (8.3.1–5). Alexander is also the subject of criticism, and the
passage shows that Alexander’s bad qualities outweighed his good qualities.
The relationship of Justin’s work to the original one by Trogus is problematic to say
the least.7 Estimates for the life of Justin span the second to the fourth century a.d.,8 and
we cannot say whether he is merely echoing Trogus or giving us his own opinion.
However, his criticism of Alexander echoes that of Diodorus (see below), who was
writing in first-century b.c. Rome. Diodorus, therefore, could have been roughly

401

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

contemporary to Trogus. Moreover, the Romans’ attitude to Alexander (and of Greek

values) was hostile at this time. Alexander’s reputation was really only elevated in the
second century a.d. when philhellenism fell into fashion again. Both Trogus and
Diodorus are a product of the Roman world and its values and beliefs, and so must have
been influenced by these factors (and perhaps by the depiction of Alexander in Roman
writers).9 Since Justin was writing so much later, when Alexander was viewed more
positively, we might expect his account to reflect this reevaluation more widely. While
there are positive elements in it, thus reflecting Justin’s times, most of it is critical, and
hence reflective of the earlier negative views of Alexander. This type of contextualization
thus gives us good enough grounds for accepting that Justin is following Trogus in his
opinions of Philip and Alexander.
A more careful reading of this Justin passage reveals that Philip is presented as the
reverse of Alexander. In other words, Philip’s personal good qualities outweigh his bad
ones, and hence Trogus/Justin elevates him over Alexander. For example, Justin says
that Alexander ‘surpassed his father both in good qualities and bad [qualities].’ The
latter would include emotional outbursts, for Philip ‘could hide, and sometimes even
suppress, his anger,’ unlike Alexander, whose retaliation (when angered) ‘could be
neither delayed nor kept in check.’ Further, Alexander was violent ‘not against the
enemy but against his own comrades’: one thinks of the engineered demises of Philotas
and Parmenion in the so-called Philotas conspiracy at Phrada in 330,10 Callisthenes in
the Pages Conspiracy at Bactra in the same year,11 probably Coenus, who openly voiced
discontent at the mutiny at the Hyphasis river in 326,12 and of course the drunken
murder of Cleitus at Maracanda in 328,13 to which Justin must refer when he says
Alexander often left ‘a dinner with his friends’ blood on his hands.’ Nevertheless, he
does end with the line that Philip laid ‘the basis for a worldwide empire and Alexander
brought to completion the glorious enterprise.’
The criticisms of Philip’s character in the passage may, however, simply be pragmatic
acknowledgments of the measures Philip was forced to take, given the situations in
which he so often found himself, and hence which Trogus/Justin’s Roman audience
would understand. For much of his reign, Philip was fighting to unite his kingdom,
given its history, to protect its borders from invasion, and to defy interference on the
part of hostile Greek powers. It is hardly a surprise, then, that Philip (as Justin says) was
‘charming and treacherous at the same time’ and that he had to ‘cultivate friendships
with a view to expediency rather than from genuine feelings’ and ‘to feign warm feelings
when he hated someone, to sow discord between parties that were in agreement and
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

then try to win the favour of both.’

Justin puts his comparative passage at the end of Philip’s reign. This is logical,
although introducing Alexander into it adds an interesting and arguably unexpected
dynamic. Further, it makes one wonder how Justin might deal with Alexander in a
summation at the end of his account of Alexander’s reign. This occurs in book 12
chapter 16, in a passage that starts with the news that Alexander died at the age of 33.
Yet the majority of that chapter is about the myths associated with Olympias’
impregnation and Alexander’s birth, and his instruction under Aristotle. It ends as
follows (12.16.11):

So it was that he did battle with no adversary without defeating him, besieged
no city without taking it, and attacked no tribe without crushing it entirely.

402

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

(12) In the end he was brought down not by the valour of an enemy but by a
plot hatched by his own men and the treachery of his fellow countrymen.

There is no question that this is a far briefer treatment of Alexander’s end than Trogus/
Justin lavish on Philip. All Alexander did was fight, it seems (albeit always successfully),
and in the end his men had enough of him and he was brought down not in battle, as
we might imagine he might have wanted his end to be, but as a victim of a conspiracy.14
It is thus an inglorious death, not a Homeric/heroic one, but then so was that of Philip,
cut down by an assassin’s dagger at Aegae in 336 and perhaps also the victim of a
conspiracy that may even have involved Alexander.15
Next, let us consider Diodorus. Again (as with Trogus/Justin), we have the problem
that affects all of the secondary ancient sources on Alexander: to what extent do they
accurately use the primary (earlier) source material, existing today only in fragments,16
and especially do they give us views stemming from the historical and cultural
backgrounds in which they wrote or do they simply reiterate those of their sources?17 It
has been convincingly demonstrated that Diodorus was not merely a ‘scissors and paste
historian,’ virtually summarizing his sources, when it comes to his use of the sources (as
has long been thought), but was his own distinctive writer and with his own opinions.18
Since I have argued that the judgments of Diodorus and Tragus/Justin are similar, they
may well reflect the Roman view of Alexander in the early empire. However, it is the
concluding passages in Diodorus that I find particularly telling because before each of
these passages Diodorus has given us a straightforward narrative of each king’s reign. In
the concluding sections what we read are his own opinions of these kings, with Philip
coming off better than Alexander.
Thus, at 17.117.5, Diodorus is of the opinion that ‘[Alexander] accomplished greater
deeds than any, not only of the kings who had lived before him but also of those who
were to come later down to our time.’ This is high praise, but fitting for someone who
within a decade had expanded the Macedonian empire from Greece to what the Greeks
called India (modern Pakistan), and could not be matched by any other king of
Macedonia. However, in his concluding comments about Philip in 16.95, Diodorus has
this to say:

Such was the end of Philip, who had made himself the greatest of the kings in
Europe in his time, and because of the extent of his kingdom had made himself
a throned companion of the twelve gods. He had ruled twenty-four years. He is
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

known to fame as one who with but the slenderest resources to support his
claim to a throne won for himself the greatest empire in the Greek world, while
the growth of his position was not due so much to his prowess in arms as to his
adroitness and cordiality in diplomacy. Philip himself is said to have been
prouder of his grasp of strategy and his diplomatic successes than of his valor in
actual battle. Every member of his army shared in the successes that were won
in the field but he alone got credit for victories won through negotiations.

The immediate reaction is that this is far better than the brief conclusion on Alexander.
That Philip was the ‘greatest of the kings in Europe’ clearly echoes Theopompus’ famous
line in the Proem to his Philippica that Europe had never produced such a man as Philip. 19
Theopompus goes on to detail Philip’s various character flaws and ruthlessness, such as

403

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

his excessive drinking, a voracious sexual appetite for women, men, and boys, his
incontinence, his inability to manage money, and his destruction of Greek cities.20 He
also states that Philip owed more to luck than anything else, and expounds on the
dangers of life at the Macedonian court. There are echoes here of Demosthenes (2.18–
19), who says the Macedonian court was dangerous, debauched, and full of indecent
dancing and drunken revelry, and he regularly attributes the king’s military successes to
his use of bribes.21 Theopompus and Demosthenes were contemporary writers and they
did not like Philip (yet Demosthenes would call Philip ‘the cleverest man under the
sun,’ Aes. 2.41). Clearly the criticisms of our later writers on Philip are far more limited
in extent,22 and in fact they dilute what the earlier sources give us in their presentation
of the two kings.
Thus, Diodorus echoes what Theopompus has to say about Philip and Europe, but he
decides to modify it and even ignore some of the more telling criticisms. Philip
seemingly has done enough to make him a god;23 he came from nowhere and won for
himself ‘the greatest empire in the Greek world.’ He did so by a combination of military
force and diplomacy, and he thought more of diplomacy than fighting.24 In other words,
he used other means to beat his enemies (unlike Alexander) and especially to consolidate
his position, again unlike his son.
The similarity in viewpoint and especially in the placement between Diodorus’
longer closing comment on Philip and shorter one on Alexander and Justin’s longer
closing comment on Philip and shorter one on Alexander is striking. Moreover, Trogus/
Justin turns his necrology of Philip into a long comparison between Philip and his
famous son. In Alexander literature as a whole it is unique, and it extends far beyond the
famous speech in 324 that Alexander allegedly delivered to his mutinous men at Opis
(as Arrian gives it to us), in which he started off by lauding his father but then went on
to praise his own achievements more.25
Justin does not appear to be giving us merely rhetorical flourish, as it has been argued
that Arrian does in the Opis speech, nor was he expounding on some literary father–son
topos. There is more to his necrology than a literary undertone. Like Diodorus, Trogus/
Justin’s view of Philip and Alexander is based not so much on what each king did, but
how each king acted in the best interests of his kingdom and especially each king’s
legacy. These points now need expansion, beginning with the legacies.
There is a chasm of a difference between the legacy of Alexander and that of Philip.26
Thus, at the end of Alexander’s reign in 323, when the Macedonian empire was at its
greatest geographical extent, national pride back home was probably at its lowest and
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

dissatisfaction with its king at its highest. Alexander left no undisputed heir to succeed
him, and when news of his death reached the mainland, the Greeks revolted from
Macedonia in the Lamian War.27 He also depleted Macedonian manpower with his
frequent demands for reinforcements to the extent that Antipater, left behind as
guardian of Greece and deputy he-gemo-n of the League of Corinth, could have been
severely compromised if the Greeks had attempted a widespread insurrection.28 Diodorus
17.16 tells us that Parmenion and Antipater had been urging Alexander from the time
of his accession not to become actively involved in Asia until he had produced a son and
heir, but he ignored them (admittedly, choosing a bride in his first year as king, given
the problems he faced, was problematic, not least because of the relative dearth of
suitable candidates). That was perhaps his biggest failing as king. Unlike his father,
Alexander failed to grasp the advantages of political marriages to consolidate and

404

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

maintain power — of Philip’s seven marriages, the first six were kata polemon.29
Alexander’s marriage to Roxane of Bactria in 327 was probably political — an attempt
to secure the loyalty of Bactria, as well as to have an heir.30 By then it was a case of too
little too late. Roxane did give birth to a child, who died at the Hyphasis river in 326
(Metz Epit. 70). She was pregnant again when Alexander died, and Alexander’s answer
of ‘to the best’ when he was asked to whom he was leaving his empire only exacerbated
the tensions between his generals.31 Alexander may well have ushered in the cultural
greatness of the Hellenistic era,32 but after his death the Macedonian throne became a
bone of contention in the bloody wars waged by those generals for three decades, and
the empire that Philip had worked so hard to found and Alexander to extend was no
more.
Philip’s legacy, on the other hand, was brilliant, and there is no question that
Macedonia benefited more from his rule than from that of Alexander. We need only
compare the kingdom in 359 when he became king to 336 at the time of his death for
the very obvious differences. By the time he died, he had doubled Macedonia in size and
population, and his empire stretched from southern Greece to the Danube. The
systematic reduction of previous enemies within Upper Macedonia and elsewhere on his
frontiers, Illyria, Paeonia, Thrace, and the Chalcidice, and a new, centralized government
at Pella, created border security and a unified Upper and Lower Macedonian kingdom
for the first time in its history. Indeed, the unification of Macedonia and the elevation of
Pella as capital of the entire kingdom were arguably Philip’s greatest successes, as
everything he was able to do followed from them. His military and economic reforms
revolutionized both army and state. He stimulated the economy as never before, and
Macedonian coinage became the strongest in Europe. He left Alexander the best army
in the Greek world, no external threats, the plan for the invasion of Asia, and no
succession problems.33
Diodorus writes of Alexander as he does at the end of his narrative of that king’s reign
because of his military successes and the extent of the empire he forged. Alexander did
accomplish ‘greater deeds than anyone, not only of the kings who had lived before him
but also of those who were to come later down to our time,’ by which he means Alexander
created a great empire that no single person could match. Not even the Romans came
close to duplicating what Alexander did because no single man forged their empire, but
a succession of generals in different areas, and over a far greater time frame than the
decade it took Alexander. Pompey was great, but he was one of many who played a role
in extending Rome’s empire.
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

However, let us consider the difference between creating an empire (i.e., winning the
battles) and administering it. Alexander did try to administer his vast empire and to
reconcile his rule with the conquered peoples, especially the Persian aristocratic families,
but his attempts at nation-building ultimately failed.34 Diodorus does not distance
Philip from what Alexander achieved, and nor does Trogus/Justin. Yet as Justin
significantly says at the end of his necrology, quoted above, Philip ‘laid the basis’
(fundamenta pater iecit) for ‘a worldwide empire’ and Alexander brought to completion
‘the glorious enterprise.’
The phrase fundamenta pater iecit (‘Philip laid the basis’) is important. I would argue
that it shows that these authors did not merely understand that Alexander built on his
father’s considerable accomplishment, but also that without Philip’s original plan to
invade Asia, Alexander would not have been able to achieve what he did. Given the

405

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

distance that Alexander traveled, as far east as present-day Pakistan, it was nothing
short of a worldwide empire — even in his own time, some Greek orators depicted
Alexander as reaching the end of the world.35 The comparison between the two kings
gives Philip the edge because he formed the plans to invade Asia (a glorious Panhellenic
enterprise to liberate the Greek cities of Asia Minor and to punish the Persians for what
the Greeks had suffered at their hands during the Persian Wars);36 Alexander carried the
enterprise out, but again, without Philip and the plan to invade Asia, there would have
been no Alexander in Asia, and hence no Alexander the Great.
It was the legacy of both kings and the nature of their rules that drove our ancient
writers to see them as they did. Hence, to Diodorus, Alexander might have actually done
more than any king down to his day, but it was Philip who ‘won for himself the greatest
empire in the Greek world.’ Philip never forgot what his duties as king were, never lost
touch with his people, and worked to ensure the continuation of his dynasty. In his battles
and sieges he lost an eye, shattered a collarbone, and suffered a near fatal wound that
maimed a leg and made him limp for the rest of his life, but he took all these knocks in
the pursuit of his own glory and especially for that of his kingdom — as even his harshest
critic Demosthenes admits — and with no reluctance (cf. 11.22, 18.67).
Likewise, Trogus/Justin, who takes the opportunity of rounding off his account of
Philip’s reign to make this unique, detailed comparison between Philip and Alexander
that structurally and dramatically would have been lost at the end of his Alexander
narrative. It is not mere rhetoric: Justin wants us to remember the points he makes
about Alexander (and about him and his father) as we read on in his account into
Alexander’s reign. He has set us up beforehand to be critical of Alexander. It has the
same effect as Thucydides’ description of Cleon as ‘the most violent of the citizens’ the
first time he introduces him before the Mytilene debate (3.36.6). Try as we might, it
is impossible to get that image out of our minds when we read about Cleon in
Thucydides.
Trogus/Justin and Diodorus were preoccupied with that makes a good ruler — as the
Romans of their time were. Diodorus we know concerned himself with the relationship
of the individual to state,37 and so it is no surprise that Philip receives the better press
from this writer, given what he did for Macedonia, than Alexander, who was present in
his kingdom only for two years of his reign, and whose death marked the disintegration
of the Macedonian empire and Macedonia becoming a pawn in the wars of the successors
until the Antigonid dynasty established itself in the third century. That Alexander may
have been implicated in his father’s assassination did not help either. At the same time,
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

they were writing when the Romans’ view of Alexander was being shaped by important
changes in politics and culture that were taking place in republican and early imperial
Rome. Thanks to these, Alexander had become a ‘Roman construct, a product of Roman
sensibilities and worldview,’38 and he was the ‘archetype for monarchy and charismatic
autocracy’39 because of Roman attitudes to Greek kingship. Although Philip himself
had works written about him (Theopompus’ Philippica being the obvious example, and
of course Trogus’ account of the same title), and hence was known to a Roman audience,
he was not subject to the same shift of reinterpretation as his more famous son. This was
because Alexander excited the imagination more, given his spectacular military
achievements, which put Philip in their shadow. Diodorus and Trogus/Justin, however,
rightly shone the spotlight on Philip as being the better ruler for Macedonia. The great
conqueror did not make the better king.

406

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

Diodorus and Trogus/Justin constructed a deliberately styled juxtaposition of Philip

and Alexander in their accounts of their reigns. Both have a higher opinion of
Philip than of Alexander, which was based not so much on mere exploits, but on the
nature of kingship and what makes a good king. While few people today would eulogize
Alexander as the rosy, heroic figure of a Tarn or a Lane Fox,40 especially when we consider
him not as just a general but as a king, our ancient writers were also concerned with
presenting and representing as correct an image of Alexander, and of his father, as
historically possible — and so should we. To them (and the Roman audience), it would
seem, setting up a future worldwide empire was more important than completing that
glorious enterprise. Perhaps the norm of referring to the fourth century as the age
of Alexander should be adjusted and it would be better to call that century the age of
Philip and Alexander.

Notes
  1 All translations of Justin are from Develin and Heckel 1994: 91–92.
  2 On Philip, see now Worthington 2008. Also on Philip, though getting on in years, are Ellis
1976, Cawkwell 1978, Hammond 1994, and Hammond and Griffith, 1979: 203–698.
  3 The number of books on Alexander is enormous, and Alexander can be lauded or condemned
depending on the perspective of the author. Among the more recent biographies may be singled
out Green 1974, Hammond 1989, Hammond 1997, Cartledge 2003, and Worthington 2004.
The best scholarly biography is still Bosworth 1988a, and see also Bosworth 1996. For more
bibliography and discussion, see the bibliographic essays at Cartledge 2003: 327–47 and
Worthington 2004: 320–332.
  4 See below on the date of Justin.
  5 There is no need to rehearse the details of these two kings’ reigns or to give copious references to
all points in this essay: for these, any of the modern books cited in notes 2 and 3 (which quote
further bibliography) may be consulted.
  6 On the cultural and political significance of Alexander for Rome, how he may have been shaped
by Roman political and cultural life, and these effects on writers of the time, see Spencer 2002.
The best discussion of the problems of the sources for Alexander is Bosworth 1988b, and on this
issue see further below.
  7 On the relationship of Justin’s work to the original work by Trogus, see Yardley 2003; cf.
Hammond 1991.
  8 See further, Syme 1988 (arguing for the late date).
  9 Spencer 2002: 37; see also Alonso-Núñez 1987.
10 Diod. 17.79–80, Arr. 3.26, Curt. 6.7–7.2, Plut. Alex. 48.1–49, Justin 12.5.1–8; cf. Bosworth
1988a: 100–04, Worthington 2004: 120–24.
11 Arr. 4.13.4, Curt. 8.6.11, Plut. Alex. 55.9; cf. Bosworth 1988a: 117–19, Worthington, 2004:
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

141–43. On the conspiracies, see Badian 2000.

12 Diod. 17.94.4, Arr. 5.25.2–29, Curt. 9.2.10–3.19, Plut. Alex. 62.1–3, Justin 12.8.10; cf.
Bosworth 1988a: 132–34, Worthington 2004: 158–61 and 208–09.
13 Arr. 4.8.8, Curt. 8.1.29–51, Plut. Alex. 51.8; cf. Bosworth 1988a: 114–16, Worthington 2004:
136–38.
14 See Bosworth 1988a: 171–73, Worthington 2004: 266–68; on the fabrications surrounding
Alexander’s death, see Bosworth 1971.
15 See Worthington 2008: 181–86, citing bibliography.
16 Currently collected together in Jacoby, FGrH IIB, nos. 117–53, with a German commentary in
IID at pp. 403–542. (A completely new edition of FGrH is in progress, entitled Brill’s New
Jacoby, publication of which will continue until 2013.) Translations of all primary sources are in
Robinson 1953: i; cf. Worthington 2003. For discussion, see Pearson 1960.
17 On the sources for Alexander, see Bosworth 1988b; cf. Baynham 2003.
18 See Sacks 1990 and Green 2006; see also Sacks 1994 and Hammond 1983.

407

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

19 Theopompus, FGrH 115 F27. On Theopompus, see Flower 1994, especially chapters 5–6 on
Theopompus and Philip.
20 Many of the allegations must be taken with a pinch of salt. There is, for example, no proof that
Philip was a pederast: see Worthington 2008: 70.
21 Dem. 1.5, 8.40, 19.265 and 342, 18.48, for example.
22 Cf. Diod. 16.93.3–4, Justin 8.6.5–8, 9.8.6–7.
23 This passage is one of several that has been wrongly interpreted to mean that Philip sought
divine honors in his lifetime or was accorded them: see, further, Worthington 2008: 228–33.
24 On Philip’s preference for diplomacy over military might, and his use of diplomacy, see Ryder
1994; cf. Cawkwell 1996.
25 Arr. 7.9.2–5; cf. Curt. 10.2.23–4.3. The historicity of the speech is suspect; cf. Bosworth 1988b:
101–13. On the background to the Opis mutiny, see Bosworth 1988a: 159–61 and Worthington
2004: 248–52.
26 For a convenient summary of their legacies, cf. Worthington 2008: 204–08; on Philip’s
achievements, see ibid. pp. 194–203.
27 On the Lamian War, see Hammond and Walbank 1988: 107–17, for example.
28 Cf. Bosworth 1986; contra Billows 1995: 183–212.
29 The phrase is difficult to translate precisely; literally it would mean ‘to do with (?according to)
(the) war’ but the first six marriages were not the product of one military engagement. On
Philip’s marriages see further Tronson 1984 and Worthington 2008: 172–74, both also
discussing this phrase. Very good arguments for Philip’s seventh marriage to Cleopatra being for
a political reason, rather than for a personal reason, as is commonly accepted, are put forward by
Carney 2000: 73–74.
30 Arr. 4.19.5, Plut. Alex. 47.7–8; on the political nature of the marriage, see Worthington 2004:
188–90.
31 Ptolemy, FGrH 138 F30 = Arr. 7.26.3, Diod. 17.117.4.
32 Cf. Hammond 1993.
33 [Plutarch], Moralia 327c, says that ‘all of Macedonia was ablaze with discontent, and was looking
to Amyntas and the sons of Aeropus.’ This is hardly true. Antipater immediately proclaimed
Alexander king (Justin 11.1.7–10), the people quickly swore their loyalty to him (Diod. 17.2.1–
2), and Alexander embarked on a purge of possible opponents: see further Worthington 2008:
187–89.
34 On these aspects, see Worthington 2010.
35 Cf. Aes. 3.165, Din. 1.34, with Gunderson 1981.
36 On Philip’s reasons for the Asian expedition, see Worthington 2008: 166–71.
37 Spencer 2002: 36.
38 Spencer 2002: xv.
39 Spencer 2002: xix.
40 Tarn 1948 and Lane Fox 1973, both of whom idealistically set up Alexander as a Homeric hero
type who could do next to no wrong. On the issue of Alexander’s greatness, see the ancient
sources and modern works in Worthington 2003: 296–325.
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

References
Alonso-Núñez 1987 = J.M. Alonso-Núñez, ‘An Augustan World History: The Historiae Philippicae of
Pompeius Trogus’, G&R2 34 (1987), pp. 56–72.
Badian 2000 = E. Badian, ‘Conspiracies’, in A.B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham (eds), Alexander the
Great in Fact and Fiction (Oxford: 2000), pp. 50–95.
Baynham 2003 = E. Baynham, ‘The Ancient Evidence for Alexander the Great,’ in J. Roisman (ed.),
Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great (Leiden: 2003), pp. 3–29.
Billows 1995 = R. Billows, Kings and Colonists (Leiden: 1995).
Bosworth 1971 = A.B. Bosworth, ‘The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda,’ CQ2
21 (1971), pp. 112–136.

408

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

Bosworth 1986 = A.B. Bosworth, ‘Alexander the Great and the Decline of Macedon’, JHS 106 (1986),
pp. 1–12.
Bosworth 1988a = A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire, the Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge:
1998).
Bosworth 1988b = A.B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander (Oxford: 1988).
Bosworth 1996 = A.B. Bosworth, Alexander and the East (Oxford: 1996).
Carney 2000 = E.D. Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia (Norman, OK: 2000).
Carney 2002 = E.D. Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia (Norman: 2002).
Cartledge 2003 = P.A. Cartledge, Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past (London: 2003).
Cawkwell 1978 = G.L. Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon (London: 1978).
Cawkwell 1996 = G.L. Cawkwell, ‘The End of Greek Liberty’, in R.W. Wallace and E.M. Harris
(eds), Transitions to Empire: Essays in Honor of E. Badian (Norman: 1996), pp. 98–121.
Develin and Heckel 1994 = R. Develin and W. Heckel, Justin. Epitome of the Philippic History of
Pompeius Trogus (Atlanta: 1994).
Ellis 1976 = J.R. Ellis, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London: 1976).
Ellis 1978 = J.R. Elis, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London: 1978).
Flower 1994 = M.A. Flower, Theopompus of Chios (Oxford: 1994).
Green 1974 = P. Green, Alexander of Macedon (Harmondsworth: 1974).
Green 2006 = P. Green, Diodorus Siculus Books 11–12.37.1 (Austin: 2006).
Gunderson 1981 = L.L. Gunderson, ‘Alexander and the Attic Orators’, in H.J. Dell (ed.), Ancient
Macedonian Studies in Honor of C.F. Edson (Thessaloniki: 1981), pp. 183–192.
Hammond 1983 = N.G.L. Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great (Cambridge: 1983).
Hammond 1989 = N.G.L. Hammond, Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman2 (Bristol:
1989).
Hammond 1991 = N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The Sources of Justin on Macedonia to the Death of Philip’,
CQ2 41 (1991), pp. 496–508.
Hammond 1993 = N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The Macedonian Imprint on the Hellenistic World’, in
P. Green (ed.), Hellenistic History and Culture (Berkeley and Los Angeles: 1993), pp. 12–23.
Hammond 1994 = N.G.L. Hammond, Philip of Macedon (London: 1994).
Hammond 1997 = N.G.L. Hammond, The Genius of Alexander the Great (London: 1997).
Hammond and Griffith 1979 = N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia 2
(Oxford: 1979).
Hammond and Walbank 1988 = N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia 3
(Oxford: 1988).
Lane Fox 1973 = R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (London: 1973).
Pearson 1960 = L. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (New York: 1960).
Robinson 1953 = C.A. Robinson, The History of Alexander the Great 1 (Providence: 1953).
Ryder 1994 = T.T.B. Ryder, ‘The Diplomatic Skills of Philip II’, in Ian Worthington (ed.), Ventures
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

into Greek History. Essays in Honour of N.G.L. Hammond (Oxford: 1994), pp. 228–257.
Sacks 1990 = K.S. Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton: 1990).
Sacks 1994 = K.S. Sacks, ‘Diodorus and his Sources: Conformity and Creativity’, in S. Hornblower
(ed.), Greek Historiography (Oxford: 1994), pp. 213–232.
Spencer 2002 = D. Spencer, The Roman Alexander (Exeter: 2002).
Syme 1988 = R. Syme, ‘The Date of Justin and the Discovery of Trogus’ Historia’, Historia 37 (1988),
pp. 358–371.
Tarn 1948 = W.W. Tarn, Alexander the Great, 2 vols (Cambridge: 1948).
Tronson 1984 = A.D. Tronson, ‘Satyrus the Peripatetic and the Marriages of Philip II’, JHS 104
(1984), pp. 116–126.
Worthington 2003 = Ian Worthington, Alexander the Great: A Reader (London: 1994).
Worthington 2004 = Ian Worthington, Alexander the Great, Man and God, rev. ed. (London: 2004).
Worthington 2008 = Ian Worthington, Philip II of Macedonia (New Haven and London: 2008).

409

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.
 A L E X A N D E R : T H E ‘ G R E AT ’

Worthington 2010 = Ian Worthington, ‘Alexander the Great, Nation-building, and the Creation and
Maintenance of Empire’, in V.D. Hanson (ed.), Makers of Ancient Strategy (Princeton: 2010),
pp. 118–137.
Yardley 2003 = J. Yardley, Justin and Trogus. A Study of the Language of Justin’s Epitome of Trogus
(Toronto: 2003).
Copyright © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

410

Alexander the Great : A Reader, edited by Ian Worthington, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/une/detail.action?docID=958800.
Created from une on 2022-02-10 08:14:09.