Macedonia and Persia

What is it about?

Assessment of Alexander's policies toward Iranians and generally Asians run a full gamut. To some, he remains a ruthless conqueror with little understanding for the traditions of the peoples he conquered. Others see him as a conscious successor of the Achaemenids. Neither position addresses the heart of the matter. While it is true that the Macedonian was mainly a leader and conqueror, in many situations – chiefly from 330 – he attempted coalition-based solutions that he attained through diplomatic means. Nor was his political program limited simply to succeeding the Achaemenids. He did not rise to the throne of Cyrus, did not use the title “king of kings” (so explicitly Plut. Dem. 25.3), did not take a dynastic name, and never announced himself successor of Darius III. Instead, Alexander titled himself in “king of Asia.” From 330 he was busy creating his own imperial concept which was neither strictly Achaemenid not solely Macedonian. What it was was an amalgam of Iranian, including Achaemenid, elements with Macedonian notions. Alexander's new concept was proclaimed in eastern Iran shortly after Darius III’s death and first applied to Iranians in that region, later to embrace Bactrians and Sogdians. Eventually, it was extended to all Iranian peoples. Neither the place not the time for a proclamation of a new policy was chosen at random. Eastern Iran and Central Asia loomed as a powerful and menacing challenge, buy it was there that Alexander began laying foundations for his empire. The fact should be given due recognition that the ambitious Alexander, ever eager to search for new forms of monarchy – forms reaching beyond the Macedonian tradition, where the king’s role was quite limited – had discovered in royal Persian traditions those elements that best suited his need to build and strengthen the new empire. Alexander's idea was for an empire that would be organized to a large extent along Achaemenid lines: their state was the only model of a multinational monarchy familiar, and in many ways one deserving admiration, for Alexander to fall back on. In contemporary research, Alexander’s pro-Iranian policies are often viewed as merely “pragmatic”. Nonetheless, claims for narrow pragmatism fall short of explaining many of Alexander’s fundamental and far-reaching moves such as his marriage to the Iranian princess from Central Asia Roxane (it would have been more “pragmatic” to place her at the court as a concubine) or the creation of an Iranian phalanx (epigonoi) to replace the existing Macedonian force. The complete dominance of Iranians in Alexander’s army in 324–323 is another move overstepping the boundaries of simple necessity. Failure to recognize the chief aims of Alexander’s policies in the Iranian world leads to false historical reconstructions. Iranian traditions, by and large, show an ambivalent attitude toward Alexander the Great. A complimentary picture of Alexander as a hero or even a sage is seen in the tradition based on the so-called Alexander Romance, a collection based on a Greek story by whom is referred to in studies as Pseudo-Callisthenes. By contrast, the priestly Pahlavi tradition portrays Alexander as “accursed” or a “devil” and numbers him, together with Afrasiab and Zahhak, among Iran’s greatest enemies.

Featured Image

Photo by Slavcho Malezanov on Unsplash

Photo by Slavcho Malezanov on Unsplash

Perspectives