Article

Alexander is a product of later ages. The surviving literary sources—Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, Arrian, Justin—all wrote under the Roman Empire, from around the mid-first century bc to the start of the third century ad; almost all contemporary and Hellenistic historiography pertaining to Alexander is lost. Alexander, as we have him, is mostly a construct of the Roman world and is, therefore, open to continuous reinterpretation. By the late first century bc an alternate history had developed hypothesizing what would have happened had Alexander survived to invade Italy. Livy’s unsurprising conclusion was that like Pyrrhus and Hannibal he would have failed to conquer the Romans (Livy 9.16.19–19.17; Plut. Pyrrh. 19.2 Amm. Marc. 30.8.5; Flor. 1.23.2; cf. Julian. Ep. 47 [433c]; Hans Rudolf Breitenbach, “Der Alexanderexkurs bei Livius”, Museum Helveticum 26 (1969); Ruth Morello, “Livy’s Alexander Digression (9.17–19): Counterfactuals and Apologetics”, Journal of Roman Studies 92 (2002); Nikolaus Overtoom, “A Roman Tradition of Alexander the Great Counterfactual History”, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52 (2012).

There are some methodological principles that need to be followed. In general terms we can distinguish between historic and historiographic imitation of Alexander, that is when an individual imitates or emulates Alexander and when an author makes a comparison between Alexander and an individual. A distinction made by J.S. Richardson, Review of Alexander-imitatio und römische Politik in republikanischer Zeit, by Otto Weippert, Journal of Roman Studies 64 (1974) and expanded in Peter Green, “Caesar and Alexander: aemulatio, imitatio, and comparatio”, American Journal of Ancient History 3 (1978), though it is worth remembering that even historic imitatio is historiographic since our knowledge of it comes almost exclusively from written sources. Peter Green has expanded this picture somewhat by dividing engagement with Alexander into three types: imitatio, which is an imitation of a specific action, aemulatio, which is a general desire to rival or surpass, and comparatio, which is comparison between two individuals by an author (Green, “Caesar and Alexander”).

Receptions of Alexander were culturally adaptive and differed from the Hellenistic East to the Roman West. Republican generals such as Pompey and Caesar could not imitate or emulate Alexander in the same way as Hellenistic monarchs, who, for instance, often claimed direct descent from him. Alexander-imitatio also developed associated connections over time. Roman imitation of Alexander at Ilium developed alongside Roman kinship relations with the Trojans. Imitation of Alexander sometimes entailed imitation of his heroic predecessors, so when Caracalla sacrificed at Ilium he was both imitating Alexander and paralleling himself with Achilles. Regarding the issue of Alexander’s own imitatio and aemulatio, see: Sabine Müller, “Die Problematik der Nachahmung—imitatio und aemulatio bei Alexander iii. von Makedonien”, in Plagiate. Fälschungen, Imitate und andere Strategien aus zweiter Hand, ed. Jochen Bung et al. (Berlin: Trafo, 2009). Scholarship has traditionally focused on how the ‘big men’ of history engaged with Alexander’s memory, but on a more local level cities and individuals took part in the same process. Cities such as Ilium and Ephesus had local traditions of benefactions made or actions undertaken by Alexander and so acted aslieux des mémoirefor imitative behaviour by his successors. The local audience at such centres was important since Alexander-imitatio was a process of negotiation and the city’s local memory of Alexander could condition how a ruler acted.

1. Inventing Alexander
2. Connections or associations with Alexander were useful and were sought from the moment he died. Control of Alexander’s body, brother, child, wife, and army were sought and gained by Perdiccas in the immediate aftermath of Alexander’s death, though Ptolemy was able to gain control of Alexander’s body, which marked him as the king’s successor. Alexander’s body became an important feature of Hellenistic Alexandria, and was used by the city in its negotiations with the Roman emperors (Perdiccas: Shane Wallace, “Court, Kingship, and Royal Style in the Early Hellenistic Period”, in The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society from Alexander to Cleopatra, ed. Andrew Erskine, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, and Shane Wallace). Alexander’s Successors used his image widely on their coins, founded cities in his name, and in some cases named their children after him ( Karsten Dahmen, The Legend of Alexander the Great on Greek and Roman Coins (London: Routledge, 2007). Antigoneia in the Troad was re-founded as Alexandria Troas by Lysimachus, see Getzl M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 145–148. Cassander, Lysimachus, and Perseus of Macedon all had sons named Philip and Alexander, see Daniel Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 1999), 54–57, 57–62, 187–189).

His wife Rhoxane made dedications at the Athenian Panathenaea, perhaps in 318 (ig ii2 1492, ll. 45–57; seg liii/1 172), while Craterus displayed himself hunting with Alexander, “Asia’s much-praised monarch”, in the lion monument at Delphi (fd iii (4) 137; Plut. Alex. 40.3–4). Connections with Alexander had practical consequences. Pyrrhus of Epirus was compared with Alexander, particularly in regards to his martial valour, which ensured his popularity with the Macedonian soldiers of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who merely copied Alexander’s dress and luxurious tastes (Plu. Pyrrh. 8.1; Demetr. 44). Lysimachus’ personal connection with Alexander, however, trumped Pyrrhus’ imitatio causing Pyrrhus’ troops to abandon him for one of the last survivors of Alexander’s Successors (Plu. Pyrrh. 12.6–7) (Sulochana Asirvatham, “The Memory of Alexander in Plutarch’s Lives of Demetrius, Pyrrhus and Eumenes”, in Power, Kingship and Memory in Ancient Macedonian History, ed. Timothy Howe and Francesca Pownall).

1. Connections were also made at a non-royal level. In his delightful series of vignettes, the Characters, Theophrastus describes “the boastful man” (xxiii), who would regale his companion with stories of how he fought with and knew Alexander. Such personal connections are widely emphasized in dedications by or honours for those who knew or fought with Alexander (Philonides of Crete: i.Olympia 276–277. Cavalry from Thespiae and Orchomenos: ap 6.344; ig vii 3206; cf. seg xxix 552. Gorgos of Iasos: ghi 90b; ig iv (2) 616–617; ik.Iasos 24+30. Antigonus son of Kallas: ise 113. Archon of Pella: ghi 92. Aenetus of Rhodes: Agora xvi 101. Thersippus of Nesus: ig xii (2) 645 = ik.Adramytteion 34. Antigonid officer on Samos: ig xii (6) 28. A Macedonian soldier in Egypt: p.Hibeh 30). Cities too emphasized their connections with Alexander. Rhodes recorded his dedications to Athena Lindia (i.Lindos 2, ll. 103–109 [xxxviii]), while Priene (ghi 86b = ik.Priene 1), Colophon (Mauerbauinschriften 69, ll. 6–7), and Erythrae (ik.Erythrai 31, ll. 22–23) all cited his guarantees of freedom (eleutheria) and/or autonomy (autonomia) in later inscriptions; other cities remembered Alexander as a guarantor of democracy (Shane Wallace, “Alexander the Great and Democracy in the Hellenistic World”, in The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Politics and Political Thought, ed. Mirko Canavaro and Benjamin Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).
2. Cilician Soli used its connection with Alexander to ensure the weakening of royal billeting by a Ptolemaic or Seleucid king in the late third century bc (Welles rc 30 = Austin hw 279; Biagio Virgilio, Le Roi Écrit. Le Correspondance du Soverain hellénistique, suivie de Deux Lettres d’Antiochos iii à Partir de Louis Robert et d’Adolf Wilhelm (Pisa: Fabrizio Serra editore, 2011), 179–266; Wallace, “Alexander and democracy”, 66). However, for cities that did not have some connection with Alexander the Great to draw upon—a visit, benefaction, dedication, or letter—the temptation to invent one must have been great. Decades or centuries after his death it would have been nearly impossible to disprove the authenticity of a letter or dedication claimed to have been sent or made by Alexander. There are a number of cases of invented traditions where a city’s claim that Alexander visited it is unlikely or can be proven false. A dedication from the Lycian city of Xanthus by “King Alexander” has been argued by Jean and Louis Robert to be an ancient fake (seg xxx 1533; bé (1980) num. 487). Citing the poor quality of the inscription and the appearance of Ἀλέξανδρος βασιλεὺς rather than the more expected βασιλεὺς Ἀλέξανδρος, they suggest that the dedication might have been invented by the Xanthians at a later date to recall the king’s earlier passage through Lycia, which took him close to Xanthus (Arr. An.1.24.4; Paul Goukowsky, Essai sur les origins du mythe d’Alexandre (336–270 avantJ.- C.).ii: Alexandre et Dionysos(Nancy: Université de Nancy, 1981), 113–117. The bronze plaque allegedly found at Xanthus and forecasting Alexander’s destruction of the Persian Empire is perhaps part of the same invented tradition (Plut. Alex. 17.4–5). For a later audience, a visit to or dedication at Xanthus by Alexander would have been eminently plausible.

1. An ‘altar’ from the temple of Alexander at the Bahariya oasis, located roughly halfway between Siwah and Memphis, records a dedication by “King Alexander to his father Ammon”; it too might have been inscribed to record an invented visit (seg lix 1764: Βασιλεὺς | Ἀλέξ⟨α⟩νδρος | Ἄμμωνι | τ̣[ῶ]ι π̣ατρί. Alexander’s pharaonic titulature is also recorded in hieroglyphs, see Francisco Bosch-Puche, “L’ ‘autel’ du temple d’Alexandre le Grand à Bahariya retrouvé”, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale108 (2008): 29–44). Josephus records that Alexander visited Jerusalem and made obeisance to the High Priest. The story is fiction, but it emphasized Jerusalem’s importance and would have been a precedent for negotiations with Alexander’s successors (j. aj 11.8.4–7 (398); Peter Schäfer,TheHistory of theJews inthe Greco-RomanWorld (London: Routledge, 2003), 5–7; Seth Schwartz, The Ancient Jews from Alexander to Muhammad (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 30–31).
2. The story has perhaps found its way into the Jewish iconographic record. A recently discovered mosaic from the synagogue at Huqoq, Israel, has been suggested to depict just this meeting between a High Priest and Alexander, portrayed as a bearded ruler with purple cloak and diadem. http://www.xn--hadashotesi-sf3f.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=12648, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/mysterious‑mosaic‑alexander‑the‑great‑israel/ Alexander granted Sardis eleutheria and “the use of the old Lydian customs” in 334. By ad22 such might have been taken to refer to asylia. In the third century ad numerous cities in the Roman east claimed to have been founded by Alexander ( Aegea in Cilicia: Cohen, Hellenistic Settlements, 355–357. Otrous in Phrygia: igrrp iv 692: Ἀλέξανδρον Μακεδόνα | κτίστην τῆς πόλεως; Philippe-Ernest Legrand and Joseph Chamonard, “Inscriptions de Phrygie”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 17 (1893): 277– 278; William Ramsey, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1897), 702–703; Cohen, Hellenistic Settlements, 422. Capitolias in Arabia: rpc iv 6564: αλεξ(ανδροσ) μακε(δων) γεναρ(χησ); Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 538–539 with n. 30. Apollonia Mordiaion in Pidasa: αλεξα(νδροσ) κτισ(τησ) απολλωνια(των); François Rebuffat, “Alexandre le Grand et Apollonia de Pisidie”, Revue Numisatique 28 (1986).

Amisus’ claim to Lucullus in 71bc that Alexander had awarded the city democracy is also perhaps fictitious and may have been designed to exert moral force over Lucullus by compelling him to confirm the actions of his great predecessor (App. Mith. 12.83 [373–374]; Wallace, “Alexander and democracy”, 66–68). The process was reciprocal, ruler and city drew on Alexander’s memory but for different ends. Amisus used Alexander’s precedent to pressure Lucullus to act according to a civic model of Hellenistic kingship and grant the city a status benefaction, but in doing so Lucullus used Alexander’s example to assert his control over Amisus and reaffirm his right to grant status benefactions to subject cities. For literary comparatio between Lucullus and Alexander, see Cic. Acad. 2.3. Each channelled Alexander’s example differently with each acting as the other’s audience. Alexander’s precedent offered a successful model for the interaction between ruler and city. A city could also invent a connection with Alexander for less overtly political reasons. When Pausanias visited Megalopolis in the late second century ad he was shown north of the river a stoa called the Philippeium, which “was not made by Philip, the son of Amyntas, but as a compliment to him the Megalopolitans gave his name to the building” (8.30.6). The stoa has been dated archaeologically to the third quarter of the fourth century bc and it appears that a statue of Philip with a consort of son stood outside it, in the agora (seg xlviii 521) (Hans Lauter and Theodoros Spyropoulos, “Megalopolis. 3, Vorbericht 1996–1997”, Archäologischer Anzeiger (1998); Hans Lauter, “Megalopolis: Ausgrabungen aus der Agora 1991– 2002”, in Ancient Arcadia, ed. Erik Østby (Athens: Norwegian Institute at Athens, 2005).

South of the river, near the foundations of the bouleuterion, Pausanias was shown “the house of Alexander”, in front of which stood a herm of Ammon (8.32.1). Fredricksmeyer argued that this “house of Alexander” was a temple to Alexander that had survived since the 320s, but Calder has shown quite convincingly that it was a local forgery, an invention designed to attract and dupe tourists such as Pausanias (Christian Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte (Munich: Beck, 1970), 29 n. 3 (“Es ist ungewiß”); Ernst Fredricksmeyer, “Three Notes on Alexander’s Deification”, American Journal of Ancient History 4 (1979); Nicholas G.L. Hammond and Frank W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 82 n. 3; William M. Calder, “Alexander’s House”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 23 (1982). Further examples of dedications claimed to have been made by Alexander:

• 1) Rhino horn at Delphi (Ael. NA 10.40; Porphyr. apud Stob. 1.49.52; Barbantani 2017: 64-5).
• 2) Spear dedicated to Artemis (Ephesos?) “by his invincible arm” (AP 6.97).
• 3) Shield dedicated to Artemis (Mnasalcas AP 6.128).
• 4) Shield dedicated to Apollo (Mnasalcas AP 6.264). Dedicated by Alexander son of Phylleus (so too the shield in AP 6.218?). Not Alexander the Great, but playing with homonymy.
• 5) A sword that belonged to Alexander but now belongs to Piso (Antipater of Thessalonica AP 9.552).

There was a large and widespread audience for Alexander memorials in antiquity, and attributions such as these were local inventions designed to attract tourists, promote business, or give a small town a little bit of celebrity sparkle.

As with relics from the heroic past, artefacts from Alexander’s campaigns appeared throughout the Greek east and formed important links with the past for the states that housed them. On the relics and bones attributed to heroes, see Adrienne Mayor, The First Fossil Hunters. Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001);John Boardman, The Archaeology of Nostalgia. How the Greeks Re-Created their Mythical Past (London: Thames and Hudson, 2002), 33–43.

Links with Alexander were also made by private individuals.

The political context goes some way to explaining Alexander’s claims to Argead descent. Alexander facilitated the alliance between Amynander and Antiochus, so it was in their interests to acknowledge his Argead descent. Alexander’s fictitious Argead descent was only one of a number of similar claims made during the second century bc.

Numerous individuals claimed Argead or Aeacid descent were made during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, some even alleged direct descent from Alexander.

The Ptolemies claimed descent from Herakles (Theoc. Idylls 17.21-27; OGIS 54, l.4; SEG XXXLIII 1476, ll.40-42) and there was a tradition that Ptolemy Soter was an illegitimate son of Philip II (Curt. 9.8.22; Paus. 1.6.2, 8; Branko van Oppen, “Lagus and Arsinoe: An Exploration of Legendary Royal Bastardy”, Historia 62 (2013), 80-107). Philip V is the first Antigonid known to have claimed Argead descent (Plb. 5.10.10; Anth. Pal. 6.115), a claim repeated by his son Perseus (Plut. Aem. 12, 19; Livy 27.30.9; 32.22.11). The tradition for Seleukid descent from Herakles is late (Lib. Orat. 11.91).

1. Localizing Alexander
2. Alexander-imitatio was both selective and culturally diverse. An individual obviously did not emulate Alexander in all aspects of his life, only in certain contexts and to promote a specific image or gain from association with specific actions of Alexander’s (Kathryn Welch and Hannah Mitchell, “Revisiting the Roman Alexander”, Antichthon 47). One had to be careful not to become associated with the negative aspects of Alexander’s character. Pompey was mocked by some for his imitation of Alexander (Plu. Pomp. 2.2; Crass. 7.1), while Cicero, Seneca, and Lucan all cited Alexander as a model of cruelty and savagery (Cic. Rep. 3.24;Off.1.90;Tusc. 3.21; DeInv.rhet.1.93; cf. Att.13.28.3; Sen. Clem.1.25; Luc.10.20– 28; Martin, “Pompey”, 26). Plutarch refers to Alexander, like Cyrus and Caesar, as someone with an insatiable love of power (Ant. 6.3). Alexander was a Macedonian monarch and, as Kienast has shown, emulation of him could be contentious since it clashed with many of the traditional values of the Roman Republic (Dietmar Kienast, “Augustus und Alexander”, Gymnasium 76). The situation became less complicated under the Roman Empire, when Rome was essentially a monarchy, but in general terms the dynamics and dangers of Alexander-imitatio differed in the Greco-Macedonian and the Roman worlds (Green, “Caesar and Alexander”; Erich Gruen, “Rome and the Myth of Alexander”, in Ancient History in a Modern University, ed. Tom Hillard et al). Cities, likewise, had different images of Alexander which could, in the case of Hellenistic Athens at least, change depending on the political context (Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, “Hero, God or Tyrant? Alexander the Great in the Early Hellenistic Period”, in Antimonarchical Discourses in Antiquity, ed. Börm Henning (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015), 90–95; Wallace “Alexander and democracy”, 52–63).

Interest in Alexander increased in Rome during the civil wars in the late first century bc as monuments and works of art associated with Alexander were transported en masseto Rome and rededicated. For the following monuments, see Michel, Alexander als Vorbild, 15–18; Marrone, Ecumene Augustea, 38–49; Kühnen, Imitatio Alexandri, 120–123.

Augustus emulated and was associated with Alexander. Prophecies regarding his birth paralleled him with Alexander and Seleucus (Alexander: Cic. Phil. 5.47; Suet. Aug. 94.5; Sid. Apoll. Carm. 2.121–126; David Wardle, Suetonius: Life of Augustus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2014), 514. Seleucus: Suet. Aug. 94.4; David Engels, “Prodigies and Religious Propaganda: Seleucus and Augustus”, in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History xv, ed. Carl Deroux). He wore his hair like Alexander and his seal at one time bore an image of the king (Suet. Aug. 50; Plin. hn 37.10), Tiberius compared him with Alexander and Romulus (d.c. 56.36), and he visited Alexander’s tomb in Alexandria and crowned the dead king (Suet. Aug. 18.1; d.c. 51.16.5; Wardle, Life of Augustus, 157–158. On Augustus and Alexander, see the useful overviews in Weippert, Alexander-imitatio, 214–223; Kühnen, Imitatio Alexandri,107–139; Lara O’Sullivan,“Augustus and Alexander the Great at Athens”, Phoenix 70). By associating himself with Alexander Augustus claimed to be his legitimate successor, but by altering Alexander’s decisions, such as removing his dedication from Cyme, he presented himself as Alexander’s superior.

Catherine Edwards has recently examined how Roman conquest was symbolized by the movement to Rome of the art of the defeated nation (Catherine Edwards, “Importing the Alien: The Art of Conquest”, in Rome the Cosmopolis, ed. Catherine Edwards and Greg Woolf):

In addition to three statues of Hannibal (Plin. hn 34.32) and one of Jugurtha (Plu. Sull. 6), the spoils of Augustus’ victory over Cleopatra were also dedicated throughout Rome, at the Temple of Minerva, the Curia Julia, the shrine of Julius, and to Jupiter Capitolinus, Juno, and Minerva. Apparently, all earlier dedications were removed to make room. “Thus,” says Dio, “Cleopatra, though defeated and captured, was nevertheless glorified, inasmuch as her adornments repose as dedications in our temples and she herself is seen in gold in the shrine of Venus” (d.c. 51.22.1–3). Dio is clear that by bringing so much of the spoils of his victories to Rome Augustus honoured the defeated Cleopatra. The transportation of so many images of Alexander to Rome served a similar purpose. It showed that Augustus has surpassed and, in a manner of speaking, defeated Alexander. Alexander himself became the spoils of war in Rome’s conquest of his successors.