ALESSANDRO MAGNO, III of MACEDONIA. — Born in 356 B.C. to Filippo II of Macedonia. He succeeded his murdered father on the throne (336) and, after subjugating the neighboring peoples, including the Greeks (335), marched against the Persians. The victories at the Granicus (Troad, 334) and Issus (Cilicia, 333), where he clashed with the Persian king Dario III Codomano (336–30), opened the gates of the East to him. Having occupied Tyre and Gaza (332), he passed into Egypt (winter 332–31), where he was welcomed as a liberator and hailed as a god at the sanctuary of the oasis of Ammone; ALESSANDRO (v.), which later became the center of Hellenistic culture. He then headed eastward, where beyond the Tigris, between Arbela and Gaugamela, he decisively defeated Dario (331). Finally, he advanced into India, as far as the Hyphasis (327–26), but was forced to turn back because of the army’s exhaustion. Struck by a violent fever at Babylon, he died there on 13 June
323. The effect of the conquests of A. was the spread of Greek language and civilization throughout the Eastern world. All Western Asia became Hellenized, and Greek cities arose as far as the Euphrates. Judaism resisted the triumph of Hellenism at the center, even though Judea was surrounded by Hellenistic centers (Egypt, the Decapolis, Galilee, Phoenicia); Diaspora (v.) multiplied and became Hellenists.
The I Mach. relates that A., when near death, “divided his kingdom among the generals” (1, 6 [gr. 7]). Independent critics regard this detail as legendary (thus G. Luzzi, La Bibbia, X, Florence, 1930, p. 34), because it is “in contradiction” with history. But I Mach., written in 120–110 B.C., is the oldest document we possess concerning the death of A. The other documents, besides being more recent, recount events that, if not contradictory, are at least disparate, as Arrian already noted (end of the 2nd century A.D.; Amb. Alex., VII, 27). Indeed, Diodorus Siculus (second half of the 1st century B.C.; Bibliotheca historica, XVII, 117), Q. Curtius Rufus (first half of the 2nd century A.D.; Hist. Alex., X, 5), and Junianus Justinus (A.D. 200; Trogi Pomp. histor. philipp. epitome, XII, 15) relate that A., being no longer able to speak, is said to have handed his ring to Perdicca, thereby designating him as regent (during the minority of his unborn son); but the same Curtius and Justinus, joined by Arrian (ibid., VII, 27), also say that A., when asked to whom he wished to leave his kingdom, is said to have replied: “To the most worthy.” Furthermore, Plutarch (2nd century A.D.; Vitae. Alex., 76)—apparently agreeing with I Mach.—relates that A. conferred with his generals in order to appoint governors in the various occupied provinces; while Q. Curtius, contradicting the report that A. had distributed the various provinces, nevertheless adds “by testament.” Against this tangle of reports stands the fact that, after A.’s death, the regency was not given to Perdicca, as was believed, but to Cratero, as modern scholars think (F. Geyer, s. V. Perdikhas, in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. der klass. Altertumsswiss., XIX, col. 608; id., s. V. Krateros, ibid., suppl., IV, col. 1042). On the other hand, I Mach. does not say that A. established kings; rather, referring to the event of 306–305, it points out that the governors themselves assumed the royal crown (v. 10 [gr. 9]). Therefore, that “dividing the kingdom” means only, as Plutarch specifies, that A. assigned governors to the individual provinces. This plurality of governors, which in fact we find operating shortly afterward, is not incompatible with the unity of a chief regent, hypothetically designated by A. through word or gesture, in the person of Perdicca or Cratero or someone else.
It is plausible that A., lacking an heir, considered the government of his vast empire, even in its possible details. And while the other historians concerned themselves only with the general policy involved in designating a head for the entire empire, I Mach., introducing the painful history of the Seleucid dynasty, wished to go back to its first origin: the assignment of the provinces to the various governors, who, after crowning themselves kings, “caused trouble on the earth” (v. 10 [gr. 9]).
Several times Dan. refers in its symbolic visions to the kingdom of A. and to the quadripartition of 301: 2, 32 ff., 39 ff. (copper, iron); 7, 6, 17 (leopard with four heads); 8, 5–8, 21 ff. (he-goat with four horns); 11, 3–4 (a powerful king whose kingdom is divided toward the four winds).
Flavius Josephus relates that, after the occupation of Gaza, A. went up to Jerusalem, where—solemnly received by the high priest Iaddo (Ieddoa [Neh. 12, 11 ff.]), who is said to have shown him the prophecies of Daniel concerning the Macedonian king’s victories over the Persian—he is said to have offered a sacrifice in the Temple (Ant. Iud., XI, 8, 4–5). Scholars recognize a historical substratum in this tradition, but do not agree in determining II.
Gaetano M. Perrella