Part 671

MACEDONIA: B. C. 353-336. Philip's conquest of Thessaly. Intervention in the Sacred War. Victory at Chæronea. Mastery of Greece. Preparation to invade Persia. Assassination.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 351-348. War with the Olynthian Confederacy. Destruction of Olynthus.

See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 340. Philip's unsuccessful siege of Byzantium.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 336-335. Alexander's campaigns at the north. Revolt and destruction of Thebes.

See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330. Invasion and conquest of the Persian empire by Alexander the Great.

Philip of Macedonia fell under the hand of an assassin in the midst of his preparations (B. C. 336) for the invasion of the Persian Empire. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander, who applied himself first, with significant energy, to the chastisement of the troublesome barbarians on his northern frontier, and to the crushing of revolt in Greece (see GREECE: B. C. 336-335). He had not yet been a year on the throne "when he stood forth a greater and more powerful sovereign than his father, with his empire united in the bonds of fear and admiration, and ready to carry out the long premeditated attack of the Greeks on the dominion of the Great king. … He had indeed a splendid army of all branches, heavy infantry, light infantry, slingers and archers, artillery such as the ancients could produce without gunpowder, and cavalry, both Thessalian and Macedonian, fit for both skirmishing and the shock of battle. If its numbers were not above 40,000, this moderate force was surely as much as any commander could handle in a rapid campaign with long marches through a hostile country. … After a Homeric landing on the coast near Ilium, and sacrifices to the Ilian goddess at her ancient shrine, with feasts and games, the king started East to meet the Persian satraps, who had collected their cavalry and Greek mercenary infantry on the plain of Zeleia, behind the river Granicus (B. C. 334). Here he fought his first great battle, and showed the nature of his tactics. He used his heavy infantry, divided into two columns or phalanxes as his left wing, flanked by Thessalian cavalry, to threaten the right of the enemy, and keep him engaged while he delivered his main attack. Developing this movement by a rapid advance in echelonned squadrons thrown forward to the right, threatening to outflank the enemy, he induced them to spread their forces towards their left wing, and so weaken their left centre. No sooner had he succeeded in this than he threw his heavy cavalry on this weak point, and after a very severe struggle in crossing the river, and climbing its rugged banks, he completely broke the enemy's line. … He did not strike straight into Asia, for this would have left it possible for Mentor and Memnon, the able Rhodians who commanded on the coast for Darius, either to have raised all Asia Minor against him, or to have transferred the war back to Macedon. … So then he seized Sardis, the key of all the highroads eastwards; he laid siege to Halicarnassus, which made a very long and stubborn resistance, and did not advance till he had his rear safe from attack. Even with all these precautions, the Persian fleet, under Memnon, was producing serious difficulties, and had not that able general died at the critical moment (B. C. 333), the Spartan revolt, which was put down the following year in Greece, would have assumed serious proportions. Alexander now saw that he could press on, and strike at the headquarters of the enemies' power—Phœnicia and the Great king himself. He crossed the difficult range of the Taurus, the southern bulwark of the Persian Empire, and occupied Cilicia. Even the sea was supposed to have retreated to allow his army to pass along a narrow strand under precipitous cliffs. The Great king was awaiting him with a vast army—grossly exaggerated, moreover, in our Greek accounts—in the plain of Syria, near Damascus. Foolish advisers persuaded him, owing to some delay in Alexander's advance, to leave his favourable position, where the advantage of his hosts of cavalry was clear. He therefore actually crossed Alexander, who had passed on the sea side of Mount Amanus, southward, and occupied Issus on his rear. The Macedonian army was thus cut off from home, and a victory necessary to its very existence. The great battle of Issus was fought on such narrow ground, between the sea and the mountains, that neither side had room for outflanking its opponent, except by occupying the high ground on the inland side of the plain (B. C. 333). This was done by the Persians, and the banks of a little river (the Pinarus) crossing their front were fortified as at the Granicus. Alexander was obliged to advance with a large reserve to protect his right flank. As usual he attacked with his right centre, and as soon as he had shaken the troops opposed to him, wheeled to the left, and made straight for the king himself, who occupied the centre in his chariot. Had Darius withstood him bravely and for some time, the defeat of the Macedonians' left wing would probably have been complete, for the Persian cavalry on the coast, attacking the Thessalians on Alexander's left wing, were decidedly superior, and the Greek infantry was at this time a match for the phalanx. But the flight of Darius, and the panic which ensued about him, left Alexander leisure to turn to the assistance of his hard-pressed left wing, and recover the victory. … The greatness of this victory completely paralyzed all the revolt prepared in his rear by the Persian fleet. Alexander was now strong enough to go on without any base of operation, and he boldly (in the manifesto he addressed to Darius after the battle) proclaimed himself King of' Persia by right of conquest, who would brook no equal. Nevertheless, he delayed many months (which the siege of Tyre [see TYRE: B. C. 332] cost him, B. C. 332), and then, passing through Jerusalem, and showing consideration for the Jews, he again paused at the siege of Gaza [see GAZA: B. C. 332], merely, we may suppose, to prove that he was invincible, and to settle once for all the question of the world's mastery. He delayed again for a short while in Egypt [see EGYPT: B. C. 332], when he regulated the country as a province under his sway, with kindness towards the inhabitants, and respect for their religion, and founded Alexandria; nay, he even here made his first essay in claiming divinity; and then, at last, set out to conquer the Eastern provinces of Darius' empire. {2059} The great decisive battle in the plains of Mesopotamia (B. C. 331)—it is called either Arbela or Gaugamela—was spoken of as a trial of strength, and the enormous number of the Persian cavalry, acting on open ground, gave timid people room to fear; but Alexander had long since found out, what the British have found in their many Eastern wars, that even a valiant cavalry is helpless, if undisciplined, against an army of regulars under a competent commander. … The Macedonian had again, however, failed to capture his opponent, for which he blamed Parmenio. … So then, though the issue of the war was not doubtful, there was still a real and legitimate rival to the throne, commanding the sympathies of most of his subjects. For the present, however, Alexander turned his attention to occupying the great capitals of the Persian empire—capitals of older kingdoms, embodied in the empire. … These great cities, Babylon in Mesopotamia, Susa (Shushan) in Elam, Persepolis in Persia proper, and Ecbatana in Media, were all full of ancient wealth and splendour, adorned with great palaces, and famed for monstrous treasures. The actual amount of gold and silver seized in these hoards (not less than £30,000,000 of English money, and perhaps a great deal more) had a far larger effect on the world than the discovery of gold and silver mines in recent times. Every adventurer in the army became suddenly rich; all the means and materials for luxury which the long civilization of the East had discovered and employed, were suddenly thrown into the hands of comparatively rude and even barbarous soldiers. It was a prey such as the Spaniards found in Mexico and Peru, but had a far stronger civilization, which must react upon the conquerors. And already Alexander showed clear signs that he regarded himself as no mere Macedonian or Greek king, but as the Emperor of the East, and successor in every sense of the unfortunate Darius. He made superhuman efforts to overtake Darius in his retreat from Ecbatana through the Parthian passes to the northern provinces—Balkh and Samarcand. The narrative of this famous pursuit is as wonderful as anything in Alexander's campaign. He only reached the fleeing Persian as he was dying of the wounds dealt him by the traitor Bessus, his satrap in Bactria, who had aspired to the crown (B. C. 330). Alexander signally executed the regicide, and himself married the daughter of Darius—who had no son—thus assuming, as far as possible, the character of Darius' legitimate successor."

_J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire, chapters 2-3._

ALSO IN: _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapters 49-50 (volume 6)._

_E. S. Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles: Arabela._

_T. A. Dodge, Alexander, chapters 18-31._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323. Alexander's conquest of Afghanistan, Bactria and Sogdiana. His invasion of India. His death at Babylon. His character and aims.

"After reducing the country at the south of the Caspian, Alexander marched east and south, through what is now Persia and Afghanistan. On his way he founded the colony of Alexandria Arion, now Herat, an important military position on the western border of Afghanistan. At Prophthasia (Furrah), a little further south, he stayed two months. … Thence he went on eastwards and founded a city, said to be the modern Candahar, and then turned north and crossed the Hindo Koosh mountains, founding another colony near what is now Cabul. Bessus had intended to resist Alexander in Bactria (Balkh), but he fled northwards, and was taken and put to death. Alexander kept on marching northwards, and took Mara Kanda, now Samarcand, the capital of Bokhara (B. C. 329). He crossed the river Jaxartes (Sir), running into the sea of Aral, and defeated the Scythians beyond it, but did not penetrate their country. He intended the Jaxartes to be the northern frontier of his empire. … The conquest of Sogdiana (Bokhara) gave Alexander some trouble, and occupied him till the year B. C. 327. In B. C. 327 Alexander set out from Bactria to conquer India [see INDIA: B. C. 327-312]. … Alexander was as eager for discovery as for conquest; and from the mouth of the Indus he sent his fleet, under the admiral Nearchus, to make their way along the coast to the mouth of the Euphrates. He himself marched westwards with the army through the deserts of Beloochistan, and brought them after terrible sufferings, through thirst, disease, and fatigue, again to Persepolis (B. C. 324). From this he went to Susa, where he stayed some months, investigating the conduct of his satraps, and punishing some of them severely. Since the battle of Arbela, Alexander had become more and more like a Persian king in his way of living, although he did not allow it to interfere with his activity. He dressed in the Persian manner, and took up the ceremonies of the Persian court. The soldiers were displeased at his giving up the habits of Macedonia, and at Susa he provoked them still more by making eighty of his chief officers marry Persian wives. The object of Alexander was to break down distinctions of race and country in his empire, and to abolish the great gulf that there had hitherto been between the Greeks and the Asiatics. He also enrolled many Persians in the regiments which had hitherto contained none but Macedonians, and levied 30,000 troops from the most warlike districts of Asia, whom he armed in the Macedonian manner. Since the voyage of Nearchus, Alexander had determined on an expedition against Arabia by sea, and had given orders for ships to be built in Phœnicia, and then taken to pieces and carried by land to Thapsakus on the Euphrates. At Thapsakus they were to be put together again, and so make their way to Babylon, from which the expedition was to start. In the spring of B. C. 323, Alexander set out from Susa for Babylon. On his journey he was met by embassies from nearly all the States of the known world. At Babylon he found the ships ready: fresh troops had arrived, both Greek and Asiatic; and the expedition was on the point of starting, when Alexander was seized with fever and died (June, B. C. 323). He was only thirty-two years old."

_C. A. Fyffe, History of Greece (Primer), chapter 7._

"Three great battles and several great sieges made Alexander master of the Persian empire. And it is worth remark that the immediate results of the three battles, Granikos, Issos, and Gaugamela, coincide with lasting results in the history of the world. The victory of the Granikos made Alexander master of Asia Minor, of a region which in the course of a few centuries was thoroughly hellenized, and which remained Greek, Christian, and Orthodox, down to the Turkish invasions of the 11th century. {2060} The territory which Alexander thus won, the lands from the Danube to Mount Tauros, answered very nearly to the extent of the Byzantine Empire for several centuries, and it might very possibly have been ruled by him, as it was in Byzantine times, from an European centre. The field of Issos gave him Syria and Egypt, lands which the Macedonian and the Roman kept for nearly a thousand years, and which for ages contained, in Alexandria and Antioch, the two greatest of Grecian cities. But Syria and Egypt themselves never became Greek; when they became Christian, they failed to become Orthodox, and they fell away at the first touch of the victorious Saracen. Their government called for an Asiatic or Egyptian capital, but their ruler might himself still have remained European and Hellenic. His third triumph at Gaugamela gave him the possession of the whole East; but it was but a momentary possession: he had now pressed onward into lands where neither Grecian culture, Roman dominion, nor Christian theology proved in the end able to strike any lasting root. … He had gone too far for his original objects. Lasting possession of his conquests beyond the Tigris could be kept only in the character of King of the Medes and Persians. Policy bade him put on that character. We can also fully believe that he was himself really dazzled with the splendour of his superhuman success. … His own deeds had outdone those which were told of any of his divine forefathers or their comrades; Achilleus, Herakles, Theseus, Dionysos, had done and suffered less than Alexander. Was it then wonderful that he should seriously believe that one who had outdone their acts must come of a stock equal to their own? Was it wonderful if, not merely in pride or policy, but in genuine faith, he disclaimed a human parent in Philip, and looked for the real father of the conqueror and lord of earth in the conqueror and lord of the heavenly world? We believe then that policy, passion, and genuine superstition were all joined together in the demand which Alexander made for divine, or at least for unusual, honours. He had taken the place of the Great King, and he demanded the homage which was held to be due to him who held that place. Such homage his barbarian' subjects were perfectly ready to pay; they would most likely have had but little respect for a king who forgot to call for it. But the homage which to a Persian seemed only the natural expression of respect for the royal dignity, seemed to Greeks and Macedonians an invasion of the honour due only to the immortal Gods. … He not only sent round to all the cities of Greece to demand divine honours, which were perhaps not worth refusing, but he ordered each city to bring back its political exiles. This last was an interference with the internal government of the cities which certainly was not warranted by Alexander's position as head of the Greek Confederacy. And, in other respects also, from this unhappy time all the worst failings of Alexander become more strongly developed. … The unfulfilled designs of Alexander must ever remain in darkness; no man can tell what might have been done by one of such mighty powers who was cut off at so early a stage of his career. That he looked forward to still further conquests seems beyond doubt. The only question is, Did his conquests, alike those which were won and those which were still to be won, spring from mere ambition and love of adventure, or is he to be looked on as in any degree the intentional missionary of Hellenic culture? That such he was is set forth with much warmth and some extravagance in a special treatise of Plutarch; it is argued more soberly, but with true vigour and eloquence, in the seventh volume of Bishop Thirlwall. Mr. Grote denies him all merit of the kind."

_E. A. Freeman, Alexander (Historical Essays, series 2)._

ALSO IN: _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapters 51-55 (volumes 6-7)._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-322. Revolt in Greece. The Lamian War. Subjugation of Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316. The Partition of the Empire of Alexander. First Period of the Wars of the Diadochi or Successors of Alexander.

Alexander "left his wife Roxana pregnant, who at the end of three months brought into the world the rightful heir to the sceptre, Alexander; he left likewise an illegitimate son, Hercules; a bastard half-brother, Arrhidæus; his mother, the haughty and cruel Olympias, and a sister, Cleopatra, both widows; the artful Eurydice, (daughter to Cyane, one of Philip's sisters,) subsequently married to the king, Arrhidæus; and Thessalonica, Philip's daughter, afterwards united to Cassander of Macedonia. The weak Arrhidæus, under the name of Philip, and the infant Alexander, were at last proclaimed kings, the regency being placed in the hands of Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Meleager; the last of whom was quickly cut off at the instigation of Perdiccas." The provinces of the Empire which Alexander had conquered were now divided between the generals of his army, who are known in history as the Diadochi, that is, the Successors. The division was as follows: "Ptolemy son of Lagus received Egypt [see EGYPT: B. C. 323-30]; Leonnatus, Mysia; Antigonus, Phyrgia, Lycia, and Pamphylia; Lysymachus, Macedonian Thrace; Antipater and Craterus remained in possession of Macedonia. … The remaining provinces either did not come under the new division [see SELEUCIDAE], or else their governors are unworthy of notice,"

_A. H. L. Heeren, Manual of Ancient History, page 222._