Unlike Greeks, fellow Macedonians, and others throughout the Mediterranean in the generations before him, Alexander by and large chose not to detain diplomatic hostages as part of formal treaties that were forged while he was on campaign in the East. His reluctance appears to be part of a sustained effort to eschew the kinds of international networks that would have required a more measured campaign. The apparatus and maintenance of hostages was not in keeping with an ambition trained on achieving personal glory.
This paper explores the approach of Frontinus towards the stratagems of Alexander. The author takes a broadly positive approach to Alexander, and takes advantage of the opportunity to link Alexander and his father, Philip. The paper further explores Frontinus' treatment of Alexander in relation to a predecessor and a successor in the exemplars tradition: Valerius Maximus and Polyaenus, respectively.
Alexander I of Macedon was a highly influential ruler who left an imprint on the political, social and cultural structure of Argead Macedonia. A skilled politician and diplomat, he profited most from the Persian control over Macedonia during the late 6th and early 5th century BC. While siding with the Persians in Xerxes’s Greek campaign, after the Persian defeat, due to his Greek networks, Alexander I saved himself and his realm from being punished for medismos. Successfully, he styled himself as a natural born Greek, friend of the Greeks, and a savior of Greek freedom who did his best to sabotage the Persian cause. His re-interpretation of his role was preserved by his successors. Apparently, under the reign of Philip II, in the context of his Greek policy and conflicts with Athens, the memory of Alexander I, the “friend of the Greeks” was refreshed. It served to justify Philip’s Greek policy. This paper analyzes the image of Alexander I and its propagandistic value in Philip’s reign, particularly focusing on the aspects of violence against the Persians and the treatment of Persian captives.
One of the most tantalizing fragments extant from the third-century Macedonian history by Duris of Samos is a summary of his narrative of the military confrontation on the borders of Macedonia in 317 BCE between Alexander the Great’s mother Olympias and his niece Adea-Eurydice. Although this confrontation set into motion a chain of events that ultimately led to the end of the Argead line, Duris (BNJ 76 F 52) focuses upon the dramatic and sensationalistic aspects of this martial encounter, commenting that Olympias led out her troops dressed as a Bacchante to the accompaniment of drums, whereas Adea-Eurydice was armed in traditional Macedonian attire. Duris’ reduction of both women to the pervasive stereotype of the “warrior woman” was highly influential on the later historiographical tradition, which portrays them one-dimensionally as violent and transgressive figures. Despite Duris’ embellished description of the two royal women in martial array, it is not clear that an actual battle ever took place. Furthermore, as I demonstrate, both Adea-Eurydice and Olympias, in their efforts to ensure the safe transition of royal power to their (male) relatives, in fact relied on normative gender-conforming methods to obtain their objectives. But it was very much in the interests of Cassander (who oversaw the elimination of the last of the Argeads) to portray Adea-Eurydice and Olympias (who had both at times successfully opposed the Antipatrids) as illegitimate usurpers in order to bolster his own claims to power. Cassander’s hostile “take” on the transgressive role of royal women was appealing to the Greco-Roman source tradition as a way to highlight the “otherness” of the Macedonian Successors.
The Metz Epitome has been a long-neglected source for the study of Alexander the Great. Due to how the Metz Epitome has come down to scholars, many questions still remain surrounding its composition, context, and audience. This paper offers a reappraisal of Romano’s thesis that the Metz Epitome was written before or during Julian’s campaign against the Sassanids in AD 363. It will examine two themes – the Alexander centricity of the narrative and the emphasis on Alexander’s non-violent interactions with local figures and groups – and suggest that the Metz Epitome was written in a post-Julian Roman empire.
