Alexander the Great, III of Macedon

ALEXANDER THE GREAT, III OF MACEDON. - Born in 356 B.C. to Philip II of Macedonia. He succeeded his murdered father on the throne (336) and, having subdued the neighboring peoples, among them the Greeks (335), he marched against the Persians. The victories of the Granicus (Troad, 334) and of Issus (Cilicia, 333), where he clashed with the king of Persia Darius III Codomannus (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 Ammon; there he founded Alexandria (v.), which later became the center of Hellenistic culture. He then headed East, where beyond the Tigris, between Arbela and Gaugamela, he definitively defeated Darius (331). Finally he pushed on into India, as far as the Hyphasis (327-26), but had to turn back because of the exhaustion of his army. Struck by a violent fever at Babylon, he died there on June 13,

323. The effect of A.'s conquests was the spread of the Greek language and civilization throughout the Eastern world. The whole of anterior Asia became Hellenized, and Greek cities arose as far as the Euphrates. Against the triumph of Hellenism, Judaism resisted at its center, even though Judea was surrounded by Hellenistic centers (Egypt, the Decapolis, Galilee, Phoenicia); but the Jews of the Diaspora (v.) multiplied and became Hellenists.

The I Mach. recounts that A., near death, "divided his kingdom among his generals" (1:6 [Gk. 7]). Independent critics regard this datum 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 on the death of A. The other documents, moreover, besides being more recent, narrate things that are, if not contradictory, at least disparate, as Arrian already noted (end of the 2nd century A.D.; Amb. Alex., VII, 27). In fact, Diodorus Siculus (2nd half of the 1st century B.C.; Bibliotheca historica, XVII, 117), Q. Curtius Rufus (1st half of the 2nd century A.D.; Hist. Alex., X, 5) and Junianus Justinus (200 A.D.; Trogi Pomp. histor. philipp. epitome, XII, 15) recount that A., no longer able to speak, handed his ring to Perdiccas, 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, replied: "To the most worthy." Furthermore, Plutarch (2nd century A.D.; Vitae. Alex., 76) — agreeing, it seems, with I Mach. — narrates that A. conferred with his generals to establish governors in the various occupied provinces; while Q. Curtius, rejecting the report that A. distributed the various provinces, adds however "by testament." Against such a tangle of reports stands the fact that, after the death of A., the regency was not given to Perdiccas, as was believed, but to Craterus, 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; on the contrary, alluding to the event of 306-305, it points out how the governors assumed the royal crown on their own (v. 10 [Gk. 9]). Therefore, that "dividing the kingdom" means only, as Plutarch specifies, that A. assigned governors to the individual provinces. To this plurality of governors, moreover, which in fact we find in operation a little later, the unity of a regent-in-chief does not stand opposed, designated, hypothetically, by A. by word or gesture, in the person of Perdiccas or Craterus or another.

It is likely that A., lacking an heir, thought about the government of his vast empire, even in its possible details. And while the other historians concerned themselves only with the general direction in the designation of a head of the whole empire, I Mach., introducing the painful Seleucid history, wished to go back to its first origin: the assignment of the provinces to the various governors, who then, having crowned themselves kings, "caused troubles upon the earth" (v. 10 [Gk. 9]).

Several times Dan. in its symbolic visions alludes to the kingdom of A. and to the fourfold division of 301: 2:32 ff., 39 ff. (bronze, iron); 7:6, 17 (leopard with four heads); 8:5-8, 21 ff. (he-goat with four horns); 11:3-4 (a mighty king, whose kingdom is divided to the four winds).

Flavius Josephus recounts that, after the occupation of Gaza, A. went up to Jerusalem, where — received solemnly by the high priest Jaddo (Joiada [Neh. 12:11 ff.]), who is said to have shown him the prophecies of Daniel concerning the victories of the Macedonian king over the Persian — he is said to have offered a sacrifice in the Temple (Ant. Iud., XI, 8, 4-5). Scholars recognize in this tradition a historical substratum, but do not agree in determining it.

Gaetano M. Perrella