Is Alexander the Great macedonian or greek? | AskHistorians Archive Observer

I see a couple of answers by /u/Iphikrates have been linked, and I'll just start off by saying I substantively agree with them – the question is not one with a simple binary answer, and the discussion around it is dominated by questions of modern nationalism relating especially to disputes between the modern Hellenic Republic and the Republic of North Macedonia (formerly the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The angle taken in the linked answers is, I would stress, an entirely valid one, given the way that the question is usually asked. That said, my own view on the subject is that as long as we are very clear that we are confining ourselves to a properly historically contextualised understanding of these identities, then we can and indeed should be able to have a meaningful discussion of Greekness and Macedonianness both in the immediate context of Alexander's campaigns and in the broader context of the classical Alexander historiography that would develop over the next half-millennium.

It is vital to stress that perceptions of Greekness and Macedonianness did matter greatly in Alexander's day. This is perhaps most apparent in the histories of events after he died (for reasons that may become apparent later), in which Greco-Macedonian tensions are frequently highlighted. Perhaps the most illustrative case is that of Eumenes of Kardia, a Greek who served as Alexander's personal secretary before taking field command under his appointed successor, Perdikkas. Eumenes' perceived non-Macedonianness was a notable hurdle when it came to his attempts to command Macedonian troops:

When Alexander was dead and a quarrel had arisen between the Macedonian men-at‑war and his principal officers, or companions, Eumenes sided with the latter in his opinions, but in what he said he was a kind of common friend to both and held himself aloof from the quarrel, on the ground that it was no business of his, since he was a stranger, to meddle in disputes of Macedonians.

– Plutarch, Life of Eumenes 3.1

Alcetas, then, flatly refused to serve in the campaign, on the ground that the Macedonians under him were ashamed to fight Antipater, and were so well disposed to Craterus that they were ready to receive him with open arms.

– Ibid. 5.2

Eumenes, who at this time also kept these things in mind, prudently made his own position secure, for he foresaw that Fortune would change again. He perceived that he himself was a foreigner and had no claim to the royal power, that the Macedonians who were now subject to him had previously decreed his death, and that those who occupied the military commands were filled with arrogance and were aiming at great affairs. He therefore understood that he would soon be despised and at the same time envied, and that his life would eventually be in danger; for no one will willingly carry out orders given by those whom he regards as his inferiors, or be patient when he has over him as masters those who ought themselves to be subject to others.

– Diodoros 18.60.1

But it was one that could be overcome through a mixture of both general beneficence and specific mobilisations of Macedonian symbols of political legitimacy:

Moreover, having promised to give his soldiers their pay within three days, he sold them the homesteads and castles about the country, which were full of slaves and flocks. Then every captain in the phalanx or commander of mercenaries who had bought a place was supplied by Eumenes with implements and engines of war and took it by siege; and thus every soldier received the pay that was due him, in a distribution of the captured properties. In consequence of this, Eumenes was again in high favour; and once when letters were found in his camp which the leaders of the enemy had caused to be scattered there, wherein they offered a hundred talents and honours to any one who should kill Eumenes, his Macedonians were highly incensed and made a decree that a thousand of the leading soldiers should serve him continually as a body-guard, watching over him when he went abroad and spending the night at his door.

– Plutarch, Eumenes 8.5-6

As all agreed to his proposal, everything needed was quickly made ready, for the royal treasure was rich in gold. Straightway then, when a magnificent tent had been set up, the throne was erected, upon which were placed the diadem, the sceptre, and the armour that Alexander had been wont to use. Then when an altar with a fire upon it had been put in place, all the commanders would make sacrifice from a golden casket, presenting frankincense and the most costly of the other kinds of incense and making obeisance to Alexander as to a god. After this those who exercised command would sit in the many chairs that had been placed about and take counsel together, deliberating upon the matters that from time to time required their attention. Eumenes, by placing himself on an equality with the other commanders in all the matters that were discussed and by seeking their favour through the most friendly intercourse, wore down the envy with which he had been regarded and secured for himself a great deal of goodwill among the commanders. 3 As their reverence for the king grew stronger, they were all filled with happy expectations, just as if some god were leading them. And by conducting himself toward the Macedonian Silver Shields in a similar way, Eumenes gained great favour among them as a man worthy of the solicitude of the kings.

Diodoros 18.61.1-3

Apologies for all the block quotes above, but I want to stress as heavily as possible that perceptions of one's identity could be extremely significant, and that the question of how particular leaders presented themselves – and how far those they were appealing to accepted those presentations – is a valid one to ask. What the case of Eumenes shows is that there was a Macedonian conception of an in-group that did not simply include all Greeks by default: Eumenes had to demonstrate that he was fit to lead Macedonians, but even then never really proved himself to be a Macedonian himself. In turn though, this raises another point: one could claim legitimacy within a particular target population's framework of legitimacy, without claiming to be a member of that population, and still be taken seriously. Alexander mobilised Persian and Egyptian symbols of rulership at the same time that he mobilised Greek and Macedonian ones, without necessarily claiming to have been 'a Persian' or 'an Egyptian' as such.

For a more in-depth discussion of Alexander and Panhellenism, with specific examples, have a read of this answer, but to condense out the key points, I think we ought to be wary of discussing Alexander's identity and the construction of his rule primarily on the basis of his outreach to the peoples of southern Greece. For one, most of southern Greece ultimately did not buy it, and fought against Alexander multiple times – Thebes in 335, Sparta in 331, and Athens and the Aitolian League in 323. For another, we need to be willing to approach Alexander as a universal monarch who simultaneously mobilised several languages of legitimacy, aimed at each individual constituency of his broader imperial sphere. Now, that can be used to justify one of two positions: If we claim Alexander was Greek because he successfully made use of Greek tools of legitimacy, then we equally ought to argue he was Egyptian and Persian. If we do not claim he was Egyptian or Persian simply because of his exploitation of Egyptian and Persian motifs, then we should not extend that to the Greeks either. This is, of course, presuming that we only base our view of him from his public-facing persona. We cannot exclude the possibility that he privately saw himself both as Greek and as Macedonian, but I would argue that much of his behaviour in his campaigns suggests otherwise. His appointment almost exclusively of Macedonians as satraps, his dismissal of large portions of his Greek allies after Gaugamela, and his cynical resettlement of former anti-Macedonian Greek mercenaries in the Iranian and Bactrian highlands all point to someone who saw his rule as predicated on the maintenance of a position of Macedonian superiority within his empire, and relied on a sense of Macedonian in-group loyalty. In other words, I would argue that Alexander ought to be understood as a Macedonian who nevertheless maintained a series of non-Macedonian public personas.

As with any discussion of Alexander it is vital to really dig into the sources, and I would like to stress that the notion of Alexander as a Greek hero, while not spun from whole cloth, is largely the product of two late literary histories, those of Arrian and Plutarch. I discuss these in more detail in this answer and to some extent this answer, but to put it bluntly, both of these sources have a vested interest in portraying Alexander as extremely culturally Hellenised, and his campaigns, at least against the Persians, as sincere fulfilments of the Panhellenic dream of retribution for the Persian invasions of the Greek mainland and continued rule over the Greeks of Ionia. While based on sources contemporary with Alexander, they are selective in their use of these sources, and in such a way that specifically pushes their own narratives of Alexander as a pan-Greek hero, and we ought therefore to be extremely sceptical. Indeed, we ought to be especially so given that Plutarch is so quiet on Greco-Macedonian tensions in the Life of Alexander, when, as seen, the Life of Eumenes highlights such tensions with great frequency.