Mesopotamia in the Ancient World

Impact, Continuities, Parallels

Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium

of the Melammu Project Held in Obergurgl,
Austria, November 4–8, 2013

Edited by
Robert Rollinger and Erik van Dongen
Melammu Symposia 7

Edited by Robert Rollinger (Helsinki / Innsbruck)

In collaboration with Ann Gunter (Evanston),

Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila (Helsinki), Johannes Haubold (Durham),
Giovanni-Battista Lanfranchi (Padova), Krzysztof Nawotka
(Wrocław), Martti Nissinen (Helsinki), Beate Pongratz-Leisten
(New York), Kai Ruffing (Kassel), Josef Wiesehöfer (Kiel)
Mesopotamia in the Ancient World

Impact, Continuities, Parallels

Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium

of the Melammu Project Held in Obergurgl,
Austria, November 4–8, 2013

Edited by
Robert Rollinger and Erik van Dongen

Ugarit-Verlag
Münster 2015
Mesopotamia in the Ancient World. Impact, Continuities, Parallels.
Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium of the Melammu Project Held in Obergurgl,
Austria, November 4–8, 2013
Edited by Robert Rollinger and Erik van Dongen
Melammu Symposia 7

© 2015 Ugarit-Verlag – Buch- und Medienhandel GmbH, Münster

www.ugarit-verlag.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
Printed in Germany by Memminger MedienCentrum, Memmingen

ISBN 978-3-86835-128-6

Printed on acid-free paper

 Table of Contents

Introduction: Obergurgl 2013, or A New Dawn for the Melammu Project ................ 1

Robert Rollinger
Old Battles, New Horizons: The Ancient Near East and the Homeric Epics ........ 5

Talking to God(s): Prayers and Incantations

Tzvi Abusch (Chair)
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 35
Cynthia Jean
Performing Rituals in Secluded Places: A Comparison of the Akkadian
and Hittite Corpus ............................................................................................... 41
Patrick M. Michel
Worshipping Gods and Stones in Late Bronze Age Syria and Anatolia ............. 53
Alan Lenzi
The Language of Akkadian Prayers in Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi and
its Significance within and beyond Mesopotamia ............................................... 67
David P. Wright
Ritual Speech in the Priestly-Holiness Prescriptions of the Pentateuch and
its Near Eastern Context ................................................................................... 107
Alberto Bernabé
To Swear to Heaven and Earth, from Mesopotamia to Greece ......................... 125
Martin Lang (Respondent)
Response ........................................................................................................... 135

Et Dona Ferentes: Foreign Reception of Mesopotamian Objects

D. T. Potts (Chair)
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 143
Giacomo Bardelli
Near Eastern Influences in Etruria and Central Italy between the
Orientalizing and the Archaic Period: The Case of Tripod-Stands
and Rod Tripods................................................................................................ 145
VI Table of Contents

Winfried Held and Deniz Kaplan

The Residence of a Persian Satrap in Meydancıkkale, Cilicia .......................... 175
Joachim Ganzert
On the Archetype of Sacral Rulership Legitimization and the Lower Court
in the Lüneburg Town Hall ............................................................................... 193
Ann C. Gunter (Respondent)
Response ........................................................................................................... 221

‘Fighting like a Lion’: The Use of Literary Figures of Speech

Simone Paganini (Chair)
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 227
Sebastian Fink
Metaphors for the Unrecognizability of God in Balaĝs and Xenophanes ......... 231
Johannes Haubold
‘Shepherds of the People’: Greek and Mesopotamian Perspectives ................. 245
Krzysztof Ulanowski
The Metaphor of the Lion in Mesopotamian and Greek Civilization .............. 255
Amar Annus and Mari Sarv
The Ball Game Motif in the Gilgamesh Tradition and
International Folklore........................................................................................ 285
Thomas R. Kämmerer (Respondent)
Response ........................................................................................................... 297

Mesopotamia and the World: Interregional Interaction

Giovanni-Battista Lanfranchi (Chair)
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 307
Reinhard Pirngruber
šulmu jâši libbaka lu ṭābka : The Interaction between
the Neo-Assyrian King and the Outside World ................................................ 317
André Heller
Why the Greeks Know so Little about Assyrian and Babylonian History ........ 331
Julien Monerie
Writing Greek with Weapons Singularly Ill-designed for the Purpose:
The Transcription of Greek in Cuneiform ........................................................ 349
Krzysztof Nawotka
Alexander the Great in Babylon: Reality and Myth .......................................... 365
 Table of Contents VII

Birgit Gufler and Irene Madreiter

The Ancient Near East and the Genre of Greek Historiography ....................... 381
Simonetta Ponchia (Respondent)
Response ........................................................................................................... 397

The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

Kurt A. Raaflaub (Chair)
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 413
Kristoffer Momrak
Identifying Popular Power: Who were the People of Ancient Near Eastern
City-States? ....................................................................................................... 417
Kurt A. Raaflaub
Lion’s Roar and Muses’ Song: Social and Political Thinking in Early Greek
Poets and Early Israelite Prophets ..................................................................... 433
Sabine Müller
A History of Misunderstandings? Macedonian Politics and Persian
Prototypes in Greek Polis-Centered Perspective ............................................... 459
Raija Mattila (Respondent)
Response ........................................................................................................... 481

Iran and Early Islam

Lucian Reinfandt (Chair)
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 487
Aleksandra Szalc
Semiramis and Alexander in the Diodorus Siculus’ Account (II 4–20) ............ 495
Tim Greenwood
Oversight, Influence and Mesopotamian Connections to Armenia
Across the Sasanian and Early Islamic Periods ................................................ 509
Lutz Berger
Empire-building vs. State-building between Late Antiquity
and Early Islam ................................................................................................. 523
Josef Wiesehöfer (Respondent)
Response ........................................................................................................... 533

Representations of Power: Shaping the Past and the Present

Sabina Franke (Chair)
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 539
VIII Table of Contents

Frederick Mario Fales

Looking the God in the Eye: Sennacherib’s Bond with Destiny,
from Rock Reliefs to Cylinder Seals ................................................................ 543
Dirk Wicke
Assyrian or Assyrianized: Reflections on the Impact of Assyrian Art
in Southern Anatolia ......................................................................................... 561
Rocío Da Riva
Enduring Images of an Ephemeral Empire: Neo-Babylonian Inscriptions
and Representations on the Western Periphery ................................................. 603
Christoph Schäfer
Inspiration and Impact of Seleucid Royal Representation ................................ 631
Jonathan Valk and Beate Pongratz-Leisten (Respondent)
Response ........................................................................................................... 643

List of Contributors ................................................................................................ 653

Index ....................................................................................................................... 657

 A History of Misunderstandings?
Macedonian Politics and Persian Prototypes in
Greek Polis-Centered Perspective

Sabine Müller

Introduction
According to the Greek and Roman Alexander historiographers, the Macedonian
nobles at Alexander’s court were shocked when, after the conquest of the Persian
Empire, Alexander started to develop a new regal style with Persian coloring.1 They
felt estranged by his adoption of selected Achaemenid traditions.2 The reader gets
the impression that the Persian court structures and Achaemenid political self-fash-
ioning were completely strange to the Macedonians. Furthermore, the Greek and
Roman writers seem to imply that the Persian royal traditions were per se obscure
and thus viewed critically by any educated Greek and Macedonian. Rhetorically
colored and with traces of a panhellenic flavor stemming from Alexander’s time,3
the Alexander historiographers associate the Achaemenid monarchy with slavery
and tyranny. These reports are biased due to traditional clichés concerning the Per-
sians stemming from the time of the Persian Wars, refreshed by panhellenic propa-
ganda, and tend to indicate more about Greek political ideology, literary heritage
and discourses about Greek identity than about Macedonian ‘realia’.
This paper will argue that the history of Macedonia is in many ways a history of
misunderstandings as the Macedonian culture is viewed and perceived from the
Greek and Roman outside. Due to the loss and lack of Macedonian reports, these
Greek and Roman texts are the main literary sources. However, they preserve the
cultural perceptions and judgments of the authors and their intellectual and socio-
political contexts.
In this paper, it will be shown that in the case of the Greek authors, their polis-
centered ideology and manner of perception is often an obstacle to the understanding
of the Macedonian politics and culture. Often, this perception is heavily coloured in
a kind of “nostalgic” way by literary narrative models. Macedonia was influenced by

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Waldemar Heckel, Anneli Purchase, Kurt Raaf-
laub, Robert Rollinger, Kai Ruffing and Erik van Dongen for their support.
1
Arr. an. 4.14.1–2; Plut. Alex. 51.1; Diod. 17.78.1; Curt. 6.2.2–5; 6.6.9–12; 8.5.7; 8.5.15;
8.5.20–21; Just. 12.4.1–2.
2
On the adoption of Persian court ceremonial see Spawforth, 2007: 93–112.
3
See Müller, 2011; Böhme, 2009; Flower, 2000.
460 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

its neighbors like Thrace, Illyria or Epirus and especially by the Persian Empire that
had been its overlord for a certain time. Thus, the political and cultural structures
differed from the Greek. Of course, the Macedonians worshipped Greek gods, the
Macedonian nobility received a Greek education, the Argead rulers claimed a
Heraclid descent and invited Greek artists, and the court society participated in
Greek culture. Nevertheless, there were differences. Greek culture was not the same
as Macedonian culture. Otherwise, cultural prejudices and misunderstandings would
not have occurred.
Interestingly, the Greek authors tend to express their criticism of these differ-
ences in the same way they criticize the differences of the Persian culture. Of course,
this can in part be explained by the literary tradition: There existed influential narra-
tive patterns that were repeated.4 However, this paper will argue that the resem-
blance of the depiction of some Argead and Persian customs in the Greek sources is
not only a tribute to the Greek literary legacy but may reflect a resemblance of the
structures themselves: Macedonia was to some extent influenced by the Persian
Empire.5 Thus, the use of the same clichés may hint at the Persian impact on
Macedonia.
To this end, this paper focuses on three aspects: the Greek perception of the
proskynesis issue, the literary pattern of the decline and fall theme within the reports
on Alexander’s conquests, and the Greek misunderstanding of the Argead polygamy
and its possible Persian prototype.

The proskynesis issue

An example for the transfer of Greek prejudices against Persian traditions to Mace-
donian events is the famous and heavily debated issue of Alexander’s attempt to
introduce proskynesis also for the Greeks and Macedonians at his court. Greek cli-
chés culminate in the debate between the two Greek philosophers Callisthenes and
Anaxarchus preserved by Arrian.6 This version of Callisthenes’ intervention is
probably a later interpolation.7 It serves the purpose to glorify the dead philosopher
as a hero standing up for Greek freedom – in contrast to his ‘opponent’ Anaxarchus
of Abdera who is portrayed as a flatterer, hence a disgrace to his philosophic col-
leagues. In Arrian’s version, the key argument of the debate is Callisthenes’ com-
ment:
υ ῦ ῦ υπ π ,ἀ ὰ α ὰ α -
ὲ υ α υ υ α, ἀ ὰ Φ ππ υ ὲ πα , Ἡ α-
ὲ ἀπὸ υ αὶ α , υ π Ἄ υ α -
α , ὲ ,ἀ ὰ ῳ α α .

4
On these patterns see Madreiter, 2012.
5
See Olbrycht, 2010; Heinrichs/Müller, 2008; Paspalas, 2000; Carney, 1993; Kienast, 1973.
6
Arr. an. 4.10.5–11.9. Cf. Curt. 8.5.6–20 (Cleon of Sicily instead of Anaxarchus).
7
Cf. Müller, 2003: 146–150; Bosworth, 1988: 113; 1995: 26; Prandi, 1985: 26; Berve, 1926:
195. The version presented by Chares (Plut. Alex. 54.3–4) is mainly regarded as more relia-
ble. However, it has also its flaws.
 S. Müller: A History of Misunderstandings? 461

“You should rather have remembered that you are not attempting nor advis-
ing a Cambyses or Xerxes, but a son of Philip, a descendant of Heracles and
of Aeacus, whose forefathers came from Argos to Macedonia, and have con-
tinued to rule the Macedonians not by force but in accordance with custom”
(Arr. an. 4.11.6).8
There is a clear distinction between the regal style of the Achaemenids and the Ar-
geads expressed by the contrast ὲ ,ἀ ὰ ῳ: According to this dichotomy,
the Persian kings like Cambyses and Xerxes ruled by force tyrannically suppressing
their population while the Macedonian rulers who allegedly originated from Greece
and descended from Heracles ruled in accordance with the Macedonian nomos.
Hence they did not behave like tyrants.9 In Greek stereotypical perspective shaped
by polis-centered ideology, the Persian tyrant king strove for a highly elevated status
expressed by proskynesis. This “barbarian honor” (Arr. an. 4.11.8) is usually mis-
taken for divine honors by Greek and Roman writers.10 Thus, there is an anecdote
about Ismenias from Thebes who had been sent to the Persian king as an ambassa-
dor. Aelian praises him as both “ingenious and typically Hellenic” (VH 1.21) as he
avoided performing proskynesis and at the same time satisfied the ceremonial needs
of the Persian court. Coming into full view of the king, he let fall his ring to his feet
and knelt to pick it up, as if he was performing the act of homage: αὶ α ὲ
ἀπ Π π υ , ὴ α ὲ ῖ
α φ . “This gave the Persian king the impression of obeisance, but he
had not done anything that causes Greeks a feeling of shame”.11
This notion of proskynesis as being shameful for Greek free men is also ex-
pressed by Plutarch who comments on Callisthenes’ refusal to perform the rite:
ἀ ὰ π υ ἀπ αὶ φ φ , αὶ
φα ὼ φα π αὶ π α α -
α υ , ὺ ὲ α α ἀπ α , αὶ -
Ἀ α , ἀπ α π , α ὸ ὲ ἀπ , -
α α ᾶ π ῖ α ὸ α α.
“But in the matter of the obeisance, at least, by refusing sturdily and like a
philosopher to perform the act, and by standing forth alone and rehearsing in
public the reasons for the indignation which all the oldest and best of the
Macedonians cherished in secret, he delivered the Greeks from a great dis-
grace, and Alexander from a greater, by leading him not to insist upon the
obeisance; but he destroyed himself, because he was thought to use force ra-
ther than persuasion with the king” (Plut. Alex. 54.2).12

8
Trans. P. A. Brunt.
9
Xen. Mem. 4.6.12; Aristot. Pol. 1255 B; 1279 B; Isoc. Nic. 17. On Persian despotism see
Plat. Nom. 694 C–695 B; 698 A.
10
Curt. 6.6.1–3; 8.5.5–6; 8.5.23; Isoc. Pan. 151; Arr. an. 4.9.9; 4.11.6–7.
11
Trans. N. G. Wilson.
12
Trans. B. Perrin. Cf. Schmidt, 1999: 296–297.
462 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

In consequence, according to Arrian’s version, Callisthenes argues: υ ὲ

α Ἡ α ῖ ῖα αὶ πα ᾽ Ἑ . “Even Heracles
himself did not receive divine honors from the Greeks in his own lifetime” (Arr. an.
4.11.7).13
In fact, the exact form and symbolism of the Persian proskynesis is debated. It is
a ceremonial rite in order to greet the king and contains some sort of prostration.14
The king is thereby not recognized as a god. However, Robert Rollinger is certainly
right pointing out that the ritual emphasizes the special status of the great kind as an
intermediary between the spheres.15 The king is Ahuramazda’s chosen one and thus
not an ‘ordinary’ person. He is the only one capable of conserving the divine order
on earth. Therefore, he enjoys an elevated status in the empire signified by the
proskynesis as a special way for the population to approach the king. The rite sym-
bolizes his “sakrale Überhöhung” but it is not meant to deify him.16 There is a differ-
ence between sacral elevation, isotheos and of course theos.17
However, this elevated status implied by the proskynesis might have been
enough for some Greek and Macedonian members of Alexander’s court to resist.
They were traditionally used to regard their ruler as a primus inter pares.18 As his
status also defined their rank and political influence, Alexander’s new elevated style
marking him out as a ruler with autocratic colors diminished their position. In con-
sequence, they opposed his rise in order to save their own standing.
In Alexander’s literary afterlife, his alleged attempt to be honored as a god is a
key element of Greek and Roman criticism and seen as symptomatic of his increas-
ing hybris.19 Thereby, he is styled as a ‘new Darius’ who has lost himself and denies
his Macedonian origins.20
Plutarch adds the moral lesson of the negative influence of kolakes and portrays
Alexander’s most trusted general Hephaistion in an unfavorable light: He is depicted
as the secret organizer of proskynesis who slandered Callisthenes and thus bore part

13
Trans. P. A. Brunt.
14
Cf. Almagor, 2013; Rollinger, 2011: 23–40.
15
Cf. Rollinger, 2011: 48.
16
Cf. Wiesehöfer, 1996: 55.
17
Cf. Badian, 2003: 246–248.
18
Cf. Heinrichs/Müller, 2008: 289–291; Hatzopoulos, 1996: 267, 334.
19
Another crucial feature is Alexander’s trip to the Ammonium at Siwa (Diod. 17.49.8–51.4;
Arr. an. 3.3–4; Plut. Alex. 27; Curt. 4.7; Just. 11.11; Val. Max. 9.5, ext. 1; Luc. DM 12.2;
13.1; 14.1). This seems to have been a complete misunderstanding. Callisthenes turned the
formal salutation by the high priests as ‘son of Amun’ (the birth name of Alexander as phar-
aoh) into the oracle’s prophecy (Strab. 17.1.43). Probably, because he regarded Alexander’s
actual aim as less spectacular: Alexander wanted to secure the caravan roads connecting
Cyrene, Egypt and Nubia. He certainly wanted to get hold of the Cyrenaean grain trade and of
the trade routes from Sudan. Siwa was one of the way stations of these trade routes. Thus, he
had to pass through this communications and traffic junction anyway in order to control the
Cyrenaica. Cf. Müller, 2013a; Kuhlmann, 1988.
20
Curt. 6.6.10; 8.7.12; Liv. 9.18.3.
 S. Müller: A History of Misunderstandings? 463

of the blame for his death.21 This whole scenario is biased by Greek prejudices
against autocratic monarchy, court structures, and court nobility. For all this, in
Greek literary tradition (that Plutarch as a representative of the Second Sophistic
knew very well), the Persian court was regarded as the prime example.22
Cassander was even said to be so disconcerted by the Persian rite that he could
not help laughing when he came to Alexander’s court at Babylon and watched a
Persian performing proskynesis.23 This may stem from Cassander’s propaganda that
he and his family freed Macedonia from the tyrant by poisoning him.24 Cassander
needed support when he tried to win control over Macedonia and had to create a
public profile.
However, Plutarch explains his rude behavior with Cassander’s paideia: ὴ
α Ἑ αὶ ῦ π ὲ α , “since he had been
reared as a Greek and had never seen such a sight before”.25
Thus, according to Plutarch, Macedonian nobles brought up in their home coun-
try receiving a Greek paideia never learned about the Persian culture and were com-
pletely surprised when they experienced Persian court etiquettes first hand. This is
certainly not true. It is a Greek and Roman perception that has not much to do with
Macedonian history. In addition, there had been exchange also between Greeks and
Persia so that this notion of a total lack of knowledge on the Greek side is mislead-
ing, too. There had been some knowledge about Persian culture in Greek political
circles. It is also attested that Greeks were in part fascinated by the Persian culture
and that there was a certain Persian cultural influence on some Greek circles.26 Kurt
Raaflaub has pointed out “that, with few exceptions, the entire range of the Athenian
instruments of empire was derived from Persian models”.27 In addition, Irene
Madreiter has shown that during the fourth century BCE, there was a gap between
the actual Greek knowledge and attitude concerning the Persian empire and its pri-
marily stereotypical depiction in political discourse and literature.28
Thus, the literary sources deal with ideological perceptions, political discourses
and narrative patterns that do not necessarily indicate the ‘reality’ but tend to reveal
more about the self-definition in contrast to perceptions of the ‘other’, political
propaganda, and ‘nostalgic’ tendencies concerning the conservation of models of the
Greek literary tradition.

21
Plut. Alex. 55.1. More general: Plut. Mor. 65 C–D.
22
Cf. Jacobs, 2010; Bichler, 2010.
23
Alternatively, it is Leonnatus (Arr. an. 4.12.2) or Polyperchon (Curt. 8.5.22–24). Cf.
Heckel, 2006: 79, 227.
24
Cf. Wirth, 1989. See also Meeus, 2009: 250.
25
Plut. Alex. 74.1. Trans. B. Perrin.
26
As the example of the peacock shows, cf. Wiesehöfer, 2004: 303. See Plut. Per. 13.13; Ael.
HA 5,21; Athen. 14.654 E–655 A. See also Jacobs, 2010: 395.
27
Cf. Raaflaub, 2009: 97.
28
Cf. Madreiter, 2012: 180–184.
464 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

Macedonia and Persia: No strangers

Actually, Macedonia had a long history of Persian links. About 513/10 BCE, Amyn-
tas I accepted Persian overlordship by giving earth and water to Darius’ I ambassa-
dors.29 Ever since then, Macedonians and Iranians were no strangers anymore.30 The
surrender was followed by marital bonds between the Argead and the Achaemenid
house.31 Amyntas I’s son and successor Alexander I proved to be willing to cooper-
ate with the Persians and to profit from the alliance with the ruler of a world empire
in order to improve his own situation. The early Argeads were in a weak position.
Being a primus inter pares, they had to make a stand against the influential Mace-
donian noble families who were not interested in having a strong ruler. The Argeads
obviously had no chance to rise to more personal power or to create a public profile.
Being a Persian vassal and relative to the Achaemenid house brought a change. For
the first time, an Argead ruler retained some autonomy. The alliance with Persia
backed Alexander I up and gave him the chance to create his own dynastic image
and employ new methods of royal representation.32 Strictly speaking, the Persian
court was an inevitable model for the Macedonian court.33 However, Alexander I’s
rise of power will have disturbed the noble factions. This might explain why during
the Ionian Revolt, Persia lost control over Macedonia and had to restore Persian
authority in 492.34 Probably, some Macedonian noble factions took advantage of the
Ionian revolt to push the rebellion through in order to reduce Alexander’s political
influence.
However, they were only temporarily successful. Alexander continued his profi-
table relation with Xerxes and proved to be a loyal ally during the preparation of the
Greek campaign. Perhaps this was the reason Alexander, with Xerxes’ aid, extended
his realm although the relevant regions are a matter of debate.35 Xerxes’ stay in
Macedonia in 480 will have tightened the relation between the two rulers. Alexander
I may have learned a lot from his Persian guest about court and visualization of
monarchy as a series of coins minted by him shows.36

29
Hdt. 5.18.1; Just. 7.4.1. Cf. Müller, 2011: 111; Brosius, 2003: 229–231; Wirth, 1985: 20;
Zahrnt, 1992: 245–246; 2010: 765–766. For a critical analysis of the depiction of Darius I as a
kapelos in Herodotus see Ruffing, 2014.
30
Cf. Olbrycht, 2010: 343.
31
Hdt. 5.21.2; 8.136.1. Cf. Badian, 1994: 110–111.
32
Cf. Heinrichs/Müller, 2008: 292–295.
33
Cf. Spawforth, 2007: 92.
34
Hdt. 7.108.1. Cf. Müller, 2011: 111; Zahrnt, 1992: 278–279.
35
Just. 7.4.1.
36
Cf. Heinrichs/Müller, 2008. Supposedly, these coins are the earliest coins minted by an Ar-
gead. The obverse shows a rider, later on a characteristic feature of Macedonian coins. He
wears a cap that might be a petasos or a kausia (cf. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, 1993: 122–134) and
is armed with a spear. In his clenched right fist, he holds the very distinctive weapon of a
Persian akinakes. A golden or ornate akinakes could be given by the Great king as a sign of
favor and status to deserved satraps or allies. Thus, the coins show a Macedonian rider
equipped with a weapon symbolizing his high rank within the Persian empire thus indicating
that he or his empire, reign or the Argead house – whatever the rider stands for – has this
 S. Müller: A History of Misunderstandings? 465

One could guess that he also learned about the way to associate his power with a
certain amount of display and ceremonial in order to distinguish himself from nobil-
ity. In short, he may have learned about the proper public presentation of monarchy.
Thanks to Herodotus who preserved the image of “Alexander the true Greek” that
was obviously preserved and cultivated by his son and successor Perdiccas II in his
reign Herodotus may have even visited Macedonia himself,37 Macedonian cultural
memory could easily gloss over the Macedonian support of Xerxes. Thus, in the
time of Philip II, Speusippus could try to make advances to him by insulting Isocra-
tes for not having mentioned the great services that Philip’s ancestor Alexander I
rendered to Greece by killing Xerxes’ ambassadors demanding earth and water.38
Thereby, he creates the impression that Macedonia never surrendered to the Persian
Empire.
However, the three decades of Persian dominance will have influenced Macedo-
nian culture, especially ruler, court and nobility. Yet, we can only guess to what
extent. There is a gap in the literary sources between Alexander I after Plataeae and
the time of Philip II when there is evidence again on contacts between Macedonia
and Persia. Probably, the contact had never been completely broken. Analyzing
Argead history during this gap, it becomes clear that the troublemakers were not the
Persians but Athens, the Upper Macedonian nobles, dynastic quarrels, the Thracians
and the Illyrians. Thus, Arrian’s information that in a letter to Alexander, Darius III
mentioned an alliance between Philip II and Artaxerxes III, φ α αὶ υ α α,
might not have been that implausible.39 There might have been an actual coalition, at
least before 341/40 BCE, when the consolidation of the Persian empire and the rise
of Macedonia disturbed the balance of power in the Aegean and Artaxerxes forced
Philip to withdraw from Perinthus.40 Concerning the time before, Maria Brosius is
right: “The enmity towards Persia was created because of Persian involvement in
Greek affairs. Philip’s real enemy was Greece”.41
There had been Persian envoys at the court of Pella.42 In addition, for about
seven years, after the Great Satrap’s revolt, the satrap Artabazus lived as a refugee
with his family at Pella, including his daughter, Alexander’s later girlfriend Bar-
sine.43 This scattered information casts light on a continued cultural and diplomatic
exchange between Persian and Macedonian nobles. Thus, there were chances to

powerful ally. The whole image is inspired by the Persian example set by Darius I, not by
Greek coins. However, when Xerxes was defeated in Greece, Alexander transformed into
Alexander Philhellen and ordered the akinakes to be removed from his coins.
37
Hdt. 7.143.3; 8.136.1–2; 8.140–142. On Herodotus’ visit: Suda s.v.Hellanikos.
38
Speusippus 3. Trans. A.F. Natoli. Speusippus even names the wrong king. Cf. Hdt. 5.18–
21. This might be explained by the fact that in panhellenic propaganda, Xerxes was the arch
villain rather than his father Darius I. Thanks to Aeschylus, he enjoyed in part a good reputa-
tion as a wise king.
39
Arr. an. 2.14.1–2. Cf. Müller, 2011: 110; Olbrycht, 2010: 350.
40
Diod. 16.75.1–4.
41
Brosius, 2003: 237.
42
Plut. Alex. 5.1.
43
Diod. 16.52.3. Barsine as Alexander’s girlfriend: Plut. Alex. 21.4–5; Just. 11.10.2–3.
466 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

learn something about the Achaemenid court and its traditions. In consequence, to
Alexander and the noble Macedonians, the Persian culture was by no means that
alien.44
Therefore, the Macedonian nobility’s problem with Alexander’s new position
after the victories was not an ethnic, but rather a socio-political problem. The crucial
point was not his mixed costume or the adoption of Achaemenid traditions but its
political meaning in relation to their own status: It signified the transformation of the
Macedonian structures. For the first time, the Argead ruler was in a position close to
an autocratic monarch. Alexander’s critics will have minded the shift of power limit-
ing their political participation and thus degrading them. Before, they had been the
influential advisers of the primus inter pares. Alexander did not have enough time to
solve this problem. It was left to the successful Diadochs like Ptolemy to figure out
how to rule autocratically in a multi-cultural empire and how to address each culture
in a specific way while simultaneously giving the Macedonian leading nobles the
chance to save face.
However, this is just not what the sources tell. Instead, the Greek and Roman
authors provide artificial images of Alexander formed by literary patterns, stereo-
types, and role-models that are mostly inspired by or even borrowed from Greek
reports on Persia and the Persian kings (Herodotus; Xenophon; Ctesias).

A problematic hero and his ambiguous Macedonians

The literary treatment of Alexander is ambiguous: On the one hand, he is glorified as
a Macedonian warrior king and distanced from the Persian kings (Ptolemy; Cleitar-
chus; Aristobulus; probably Nearchus; traces visible in Arrian; Diodorus; partially in
Plutarch). Already the contemporary Macedonian official report depicts him as Anti-
Xerxes, Anti-Cambyses and unlike Darius I, thereby relying mainly on Herodotus’
image of these Persian kings:45 Callisthenes seems to have depicted his Macedonian
protagonist carefully as a counterpart of all the Persian kings with a bad reputation
in Greek literary tradition.
On the other hand, Alexander’s portrayal suits the stereotypical literary image of
the Western hero who fell victim to Persian vices and becomes estranged from his
own roots (Justin–Trogus; Curtius; in parts Plutarch).46 This is a common narrative
pattern that can be found in the Greek and Roman reports on different empires: the
Lydians, the Persians, the Parthians, the Macedonians (Argeads and Hellenistic
empires).

44
Cf. van de Mieroop, 2007: 300; Briant, 2002: 876; Wiesehöfer, 1999: 40.
45
Cf. Müller, 2011.
46
This is probably stemming from authors like Ephippus. Cleitarchus wrote in Alexandria
under the Ptolemies (either Ptolemy I or Ptolemy IV according to a newly discovered papyrus
that is, however, in debate) and seems to have preserved the heroic image of Alexander that
was predominant in the Ptolemaic culture. The negative twist will have been introduced by
the Roman authors who used his history. Cf. Müller, 2014.
 S. Müller: A History of Misunderstandings? 467

The decisive elements of the storyline are:

1. The protagonists come from a rough land and have never experienced any luxury
before. They are not spoiled by material values but warlike, tough, and virtu-
ous.47
2. Their opponents are weakened by luxury, wealth, and vices. Their considerable
lack of moderation and self-control makes them vulnerable.48
3. The protagonists are able to conquer their land(s). One reason is that they know
about the corruptive effect of the foreign wealth and luxury.49
4. Things change: The conquerors adopt the bad habits of the defeated and trans-
form into their mirror images. In consequence, they lose their morals and warrior
skills and their empire declines.50
The adoption of this storyline is particularly visible in the Roman histories of Alex-
ander: For example, when Alexander is astonished at the Persian treasures in Darius’
tent he will later fall victim to (Just. 11.10.1–3), one is reminded of Pausanias
admiring Mardonius’ tent (Hdt. 9.82) and his later love for Persian wealth (Nep.
4.3.1–3). However, the storyline is also traceable in Plutarch’s biography of
Alexander.51 In addition, there are some traces of this decadence theme in the
fragments of Greek writers on Alexander:52
α ᾽, ὥ φ φ ππ Ὀ π ὶ Ἀ υ
αὶ Ἡφα αφ , π α π , ἀ ᾽ -
α π π , ὥ πα α π
απ αὶ ὴ α α ἀπ α .
“According to Ephippus of Olynthus in his On the Burial of Alexander and
Hephaistion, the Macedonians did not know how to drink in an orderly way,
but engaged in large toasts at the very beginning. The result was that they got
drunk while the first tables were still lying beside them, and were unable to
enjoy them”.53
This depiction of the ill-mannered Macedonians by the “disgruntled Olynthian”54
(who either did not enjoy his time at Alexander’s court in Babylon or had to defense

47
Persians: Hdt. 1.71.2–3; Xen. Cyr. 1.3.2–7. Macedonians: Curt. 3.3.14–26.
48
The Persians as the opponents of the Macedonians: Just. 11.13.4–11; Athen. 12.517 B–C.
The Persians as the opponents of the Greeks: Xen. Hell. 3.4.16–19.
49
The Persians: Hdt. 9.122.
50
The Lydians: Just. 1.7. The Persians: Plat. Nom. 694 C–696 A; Alexander: Just. 12.3.8–12;
Liv. 9.17–18; Curt. 5.1.36–38.
51
On his ambiguous image of Alexander in the Life cf. Aalders, 1982: 17–21; Schmidt, 1999:
297–298.
52
For example, Carystius of Pergamum claims that Alexander used to get so drunk that he
traveled on a donkey-cart when he went revelling. Allegedly, the Persian kings did the same
(Athen. 10.434 F). The donkey was associated with the cult of Dionysus. However, it was
also a symbol of stupidity and lust (Apul. Met. 11.6; Diog. Laert. 7.170; Cic. Pis. 73).
53
Athen. 3.120 D–E. Trans. S. Douglas Olson.
54
Pearson, 1960: 64. Cf. Heckel, 2006: 118.
468 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

himself against the approaches of his fellow countrymen that he had been there at all
and thus wrote that critically) is complemented by Agatharchides of Cnidus (2nd
century BCE) who accuses them of behaving like the worst nouveaux riches whose
wealth went to their heads: Whenever they organized a party for Alexander, they
gilded whatever was going to be served as snacks. Then they removed the gold and
threw it away.55 The scene (that reminds of Petronius’ Trimalchio) originally stem-
ming from the moralists Duris and Phylarchus underlines the corrupting effect of a
career “from rags to riches” done to morally instable minds.56 Plutarch reports that
even Alexander was bothered about his favorites who had grown luxurious and
vulgar in the extravagances of their new lifestyle: One wore silver nails in his shoes
(practically impossible), the other had dust for his gymnastic exercises brought to
him on many camels from Egypt, another one had oversized hunting-nets and all of
them wasted expensive myrrh and employed their own rubbers and chamberlains.57
Sulochana Asirvatham pointed out that the Greek writers of the fourth century
BCE even created their own literary status for the Macedonians as quasi-Greek or
quasi-Barbarian: a third term reflecting their perception as shifting ambiguously
between Greeks and barbarians.58 In his verbal campaign against Philip II, Demo-
sthenes even calls his archenemy not a kind of ‘proper’ barbarian (Demosth. 9.31):
ἀ ᾽ πὲ Φ ππ υ αὶ ὧ ῖ π ῦ , υ ,
ὲπ ὲ ῖ ,ἀ ᾽ ὲ
α υ ῦ α ὸ π ῖ ,ἀ ᾽ υ α , ᾽
ἀ π π υ αῖ ὲ π π α α.
“Yet they have no such qualms about Philip and his present conduct, though
he is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian
from any place that can be named with honor, but a pestilent knave from
Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave”.59
In his Funeral Oration, written during the Lamian War 322/23 BCE, the Attic orator
Hyperides describes the Macedonian overlords as despotes who took away the
Greek freedom and were arrogant and unjust (Hyp. 6.16; 20):
ὰ α πα π ὺ π ῳ
υ α α , ὰ αυ υ ὰ α πὲ Ἑ υ-
α , φα ἀπ α α ῦ α
Ἑ ὴ υ α π ῖ α, ὸ α υ υ απὲ α
(. .. ) υ υ α α αὶ υ α ὴ αὰ
π ἀ α . ᾽ ὸ ὲ π υ ὴ υ -
π πα α α, ῳ ὲ υ πῳ ἀ α
ὴ Ἑ α; υ α ᾽ π ῖ , ὴ α π φα α αὶ ὴ ὴ

55
Athen. 4.155 C–D.
56
Duris: Athen. 6.231 B–C; 4.155 D. Phylarchus: Athen. 12.539 B–C.
57
Plut. Alex. 40.1.This passage also stems from Agatharchides: Athen. 12.539 C–D.
58
Cf. Asirvatham, 2009: 251.
59
Trans. J. H. Vince. See Worman, 2008: 216–269.
 S. Müller: A History of Misunderstandings? 469

ῦ α υ α πα ᾽ ,ὥ υ α πα -
πα (...) ἀ π υ α α.
“For who could rightly grudge his praise to those of our citizens who fell in
this campaign, who gave their lives for the freedom of the Greeks, convinced
that the surest proof of their desire to guarantee the liberty of Greece was to
die in battle for her? (... ) Now we might well reflect what, in our opinion, the
outcome would have been, had these men failed to do their duty in the
struggle. Must we not suppose that the whole world would be under one
master, and Greece compelled to tolerate his whim as law? In short that Mac-
edonian arrogance, and not the power of justice, would lord it among every
people”.60
He even complains that the Athenians were forced to worship as heroes the house-
hold slaves ( α ) of “these people”.61 Obviously, he uncharmingly refers to the
heroic cult for Hephaistion after his early death in 324 BCE.
Alexander, the leader of this ill-mannered Macedonian gang is of course, the one
who drinks the most (Curt. 5.7.1–2; Plut. Mor. 57 A; 124 C; 623 D–624 A; Ael. VH
12.26) and falls victim to hybris and decadence most strikingly (Curt. 6.2.1–2;
6.6.1–6; Diod. 17.77.4–7; Just. 12.3–4).
In consequence, the charges against him in the Greek literary tradition are the
same as those against the Persian kings: tyranny, cruelty, decadence, sexual misbe-
havior, alcoholism, megalomania, luxury.62
Again, it is important to note that these are narrative patterns stemming from
Greek polis-centered ideology including Greek self-definition in relation to the ‘bar-
barian’ other. Key elements are political discourses on democracy versus monarchy
or tyranny, common welfare versus welfare of a single person, freedom versus au-
tocracy, a community of polis-citizens versus a court society.

The case of Argead and Achaemenid polygamy

In Greek perspective, concerning marriage, monogamy was the norm. Thus, holding
partners concurrently did not form part of the Greek self-definition and identity.
“Exclusively monogamous societies invariably consider polygamy repugnant, and
indeed, its practice was condemned by the Greeks of the classical polis as bar-
baric”.63 The most famous example for this ‘barbarian’ custom was the polygamous
practice in Achaemenid Persia.
Monarchic polygamy was practiced for political reasons: On the one hand, it was
meant to secure a sufficient number of candidates for the succession. On the other
hand, it formed part of the marriage policy of monarchs who usually tried to confirm
or establish alliances by taking a wife from the circles of the ally’s ruling classes.

60
Trans. J. O. Burtt.
61
Hyp. 6.21.
62
Cf. Madreiter, 2012; Müller, 2007; Briant, 2002b.
63
Greenwalt, 1989: 22.
470 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

Moreover, it could serve the purpose of tying strategic female figures with influen-
tial families and factions to the king in order to prevent them from marrying a rival.
There were three ways to ensure that an important female figure carrying dynastic
prestige would be no danger: either the king could keep her firmly under his control,
eliminate her or marry her. Thus, after his accession, Darius I seems to have been
eager to marry the wives of his predecessors (Hdt. 3.88.2–3).
Interestingly, these political reasons are almost completely neglected by the
Greek and Roman sources that tend to ascribe personal reasons to the kings who
were polygamous: an enormous and perverted sex drive (a common feature of the
Greek image of the tyrant who lacks sophrosyne). Very often, the polygamous kings
are depicted as fools for love (often as too old to fall in love and marry and thus
even more out of control) whose women exercise considerable and devastating in-
fluence on them.64 Therefore, in Greek sources, there is often the image of the
Achaemenid court as a nest of serpents and a den of vice populated by the perverted
great king and his cruel, jealous, violent and revengeful women. Next to his wives,
the number of his concubines (at least around 300) served to prove his extravagant,
decadent, non-Greek lifestyle.65 There are similar depictions of Macedonian rulers in
Argead and Hellenistic times who were polygamous.
This exclusively monogamous view of the Greek writers causes misunderstand-
ings of the polygamous structures and erroneous judgments on the legal and social
status of the Great King’s wives and children. In Greek eyes, obviously, there could
only be one legal wife with legitimate children. More wives with more children
disturbed their world view and were considered as in some way illegitimate or at
least of lower rank. This seems to be a misunderstanding. Of course, in polygamous
structures, wives are ranked according to status. However, all of the women the king
had married were his acknowledged wives and all of their children he had acknowl-
edged were legitimate.
Regarding Macedonian polygamy, it has been supposed that the Argeads failed
to establish any consistent method of hierarchising their sons and principles of le-
gitimacy.66 However, this does not seem to be the case. Rather, there are six aspects
defining the rank of a royal woman at the court:
1. the political influence of her natal family
2. the prestige of the ancestry of her natal family
3. the influence of her faction at court
4. her ability to give birth to a potential successor
5. the political status of her husband and her marital family
6. her personal ability to engage in networking.67

64
Cf. Hdt. 9.108–113 (Xerxes, Amastris and Artaÿnte); Plut. Art. 2.2; 3.6. Cf. Binder, 2011:
59; Truschnegg, 2011; Wiesehöfer, 2011: 501–502.
65
Cf. Brosius, 1998: 1.
66
Cf. Ogden, 1999: ix.
67
Cf. Müller, 2013b. Regarding a theoretical pattern of the symbolic capital of the male Ar-
geads see Müller, 2014: 162–164.
 S. Müller: A History of Misunderstandings? 471

Probably, some of these aspects could also explain the rank of the Achaemenid
women at the Persian court. In any case, it is not a matter of legitimacy but of politi-
cal standing, support and personal ability.68
However, our Greek sources create a different image. Herodotus seems to recog-
nize that there were political reasons for royal polygamy but he also preserves cli-
chés about the hierarchical structure at the Persian court. According to him, Amasis
of Egypt did not want Cambyses to marry one of his daughters:
αῦ α ὴ π φ π υ υ α
ὸ α α Ἄ α υ α α, α ὺ ἀ ὴ ὺ α
ἀπ . ὲἌ α υ Π ἀ αὶ ἀ
ῦ α ἀ α α: ὰ π α υ αῖ
α ἀ ᾽ πα α .
“Out of resentment, the Egyptian by his advice induced Cambyses to ask
Amasis for his daughter, so that Amasis would either be wretched if he gave
her, or hated by Cambyses if he did not. Amasis, intimidated by the power of
Persia and frightened, could neither give his daughter nor refuse her; for he
knew well that Cambyses was not going to take her as his wife but as his
concubine”.69
Ctesias confirms this: According to him, Amasis was afraid to send his daughter to
Cambyses “ π α ὴ υ α ὸ α ὴ ὴ ἀ ὰ πα α ”.70 This is a
very Greek view from a monogamous perspective. The Greek writers marked out
differences between the king’s wives labeling them as υ versus πα α and
their children as legitimate heirs versus bastards ( versus ).
The Argead polygamy may have been adopted from the Persian model. It is
rather uncertain who introduced polygamy to Macedonia. Talking about Philip II,
Justin calls polygamy “a royal custom” but does not report when it was first prac-
ticed in Macedonia.71 Traditionally, Philipp II was regarded as a pioneer but this
view has been called into question:72
“(. .. ) if Philip II introduced polygamy to Macedonia, it is curious that our
sources record no explicit objections to his innovation (. .. ) We cannot
entirely blame the absence of the disapproval on our sources, because as far
as Macedonia is concerned they improve dramatically at the beginning of
Philip’s reign”.73

68
So perhaps this might have been a reason for Xerxes’succession and not the “Spartan solu-
tion” proposed by Demaratus (Hdt. 7.2–5).
69
Hdt. 3.1–2. Trans. A. D. Godley. Probably, this misunderstanding also colors Herodotus’
comment in 3.2.2.
70
Athen. 13.560 D–E.
71
Just. 9.8.3: “Habuit ex multos alios filios ex variis matrimoniis regio more susceptos”.
72
For an overview see Ogden, 1999: ix–xix.
73
Greenwalt, 1989: 22.
472 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

However, there is more than this argumentum ex silentio: We have evidence for two
other Argeads who might have practiced polygamy before.
Perhaps it started with Alexander I with his good connections to the Persian
court.74 In any case, the first traces detectable in our sources lead to his son and
successor, Perdiccas II.75 We can deduce that he was polygamous because the Greek
sources mention the usual conglomerate of more than one woman, more than one
son striving for the throne and a violent solution. Presumably, this is again a case of
the misinterpreted problems caused by royal polygamy. Perdiccas II seems to have
had (at least) two wives simultaneously (Simiche and Cleopatra) who bore him
sons.76 Archelaus is depicted as the illegitimate son of a slave woman who fulfilled
his ambitions to the throne by murdering his brother and infant rival:
ἀ ὰ ὲ ὴπ ;ᾧ π ὲ ἀ ὲ ῦ ,
υ α ὸ Ἀ υ ῦΠ υ ἀ φ ῦ, αὶ α ὰ ὲ
ὸ α ῦ Ἀ υ, αὶ ὰ ααπ ῖ , υ
Ἀ αὶ α αὰ ὸ ὸ . ῦ ὲ αυ α -
, π ὶ ὰ α : π ὲ ῦ α ὸ ὸ
π αὶ ῖ απ ἀπ ὴ ἀ ὴ Π α
α ὸ ἀφ , α αὶ α α α α αὶ ὸ ὸ α ῦ
Ἀ α ,ἀ ὸ α ῦ, ὸ , α ὼ α α , -
α α ὼ ἀπ φα αὶ φ ἀ φ υ . αὶ αῦ α ἀ α
α αυ ὸ ἀ α αὶ α ,ἀ ᾽
ὸ ἀ φ , ὸ ῦΠ υ , παῖ α π ,
ἀ ὴ αὰ ὸ α , υ α α α
α αὶ ἀπ ὺ ὴ ἀ ὴ ῳ, ἀ ᾽ φ α α ὼ αὶ ἀπ -
π α π ὸ ὴ αα ῦ π α α φ α π ῖ αὶ
ἀπ α ῖ . ῦ , α ὼ α ,ἀ -
α π α ,ἀ ᾽ α α , αὶ
Ἀ α ἀπὸ ῦ ἀ α ᾽ ῦ α
α ᾶ Ἀ α .
“Well, but how can he be other than unjust? He had no claim to the throne
which he now occupies, being the son of a woman who was a slave of
Perdiccas’ brother Alcetas, and in mere justice he was Alcetas’ slave; and if
he wished to do what is just, he would be serving Alcetas and would be
happy, by your account; but, as it is, he has become a prodigy of wretched-
ness, since he has done the most enormous wrong. First of all he invited this
very master and uncle of his to his court, as if he were going to restore to him
the kingdom of which Perdiccas had deprived him; and after entertaining him
and his son Alexander – his own cousin, about the same age as himself – and
making them drunk, he packed them into a carriage, drove them away by
night, and murdered and made away with them both. And after all these iniq-

74
This is suggested by Ogden, 1999: 5–7.
75
Cf. Ogden, 1999: 7–11; Geyer, 1930: 50–76.
76
Cf. Greenwalt, 1989: 25.
 S. Müller: A History of Misunderstandings? 473

uities he failed to observe that he had become a most wretched person and
had no repentance, but a while later he refused to make himself happy by
bringing up, as he was justly bound, his brother, the legitimate son of Perdic-
cas, a boy about seven years old who had a just title to the throne, and restor-
ing the kingdom to him; but he cast him into a well and drowned him, and
then told his mother Cleopatra that he had fallen in and lost his life while
chasing a goose. So now, you see, as the greatest wrongdoer in Macedonia,
he is the most wretched of all the Macedonians, not the happiest; and I
daresay some Athenians could be found who would join you in preferring to
change places with any other Macedonian of them all, rather than with
Archelaus!”77
Aelian confirms the allegations of Archelaus’ alleged low birth: Ἀ α ὲ
α α ὺ υὸ Σ . “Archelaus the king of Macedon
was the son of the slave Simiche”.78
This Greek interpretation of the events is contradicted by an inscription dating
from 422 BCE (IG I³ 89,60) naming Archelaus among the ambassadors who negoti-
ated a treaty with Athens and labeling him as a legitimate Argead.79 The mis-
representation of his mother’s standing may have been slander by an enemy of
Archelaus, expression of Greek social bias in relation to polygamy or simply mis-
understanding. It is not certain that Simiche was not considered Perdiccas’ most
prestigious wife. There must have been reasons he was able to enter the throne and
establish his position for a long period (ca. 413–399 BCE). Murdering his brother
might have been the usual practice to eliminate any potential danger for the future.
In any case, the accusation of bastardy and low birth are a common propagan-
distic weapon and of course, a standard element of the misrepresentation of polyga-
mous court structures in Greek literature. Significantly, Aelian adds:
ὲ υ αῖ Δα ῖ , πὸ Ἀ υ ὶ, ῦ (. .. ) -
α Φ ππ υ π ππ ὺ υ . ὲ υ υὸ Ἀ α
π Ἀ π υ αὶ ῦ π π υ .Π ὺ , α ῖ Παῦ
Ῥ αῖ , Ἀ ῖ ὲ ,ἀ υ υ . ( ... ) Ἀ
Φ ππ υ, αὶ φ α αὶ υ π α υ ,α -
υ ὸ .Π υ π ὲ υ .
“The last Darius, who was defeated by Alexander, was a slave (.. .) Mene-
laus, the grandfather of Philip was classified as illegitimate, his son Amyntas
was believed to be a servant of Aeropus and a slave. Perseus, who was de-
feated by the Roman Paulus, was born in Argos, the son of an undistin-
guished man (. ..) Antigonus the son of Philip who had one eye and was con-
sequently known as Cyclops, was a peasant. Polyperchon was a bandit”.80

77
Plat. Gorg. 471 A–D. Trans. W. R. M. Lamb.
78
Ael. VH 12.43. Trans. N. G. Wilson.
79
Cf. Macurdy, 1932: 16; Geyer, 1930: 85.
80
Ael. VH 12.43. Trans. N. G. Wilson.
474 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

Concerning the reliability of this highly problematic list, it is probably enough to say
that Perseus’ father, the “undistinguished man”, was Philip V of Macedonia.
Amyntas III, also was polygamous. Two wives produced children simultane-
ously: Eurydice gave birth to three sons, Alexander (II), Perdiccas (III) and Philip
(II), and the daughter Euryone. Gygaia had also three sons, Archelaus, Arridaeus
and Menelaus.81
Eurydice seems to have been the more prestigious wife as all of her sons,
Alexander, Perdiccas and Philip, made it to the throne while Gygaia’s sons failed.
Eurydice had Illyrian and Lyncestian origins, a prestigious ancestry and obviously
enough support from influential factions at the court.82
Philip II married seven times:
Φ ππ ᾽ α ὼ π ὲ ὺ π υ υ αῖ α , ὥ π
Δα ῖ π᾽ Ἀ υ α α υ , π ὶ π α -
α απ πα α , ῖΔ αα ῳπ ὶ ῦ
Ἑ υ: ὲ Φ ππ α ὶ αὰπ .‘ ῦ
αὶ υ ὶ α υ ,ὥ φ Σ υ π ὶ ῦ υα -
ῦ, α υ α α α υ α α α ὲ
αὶ Φ α ἀ φὴ Δ α αὶ α α. α α ὲ αὶ ὸ Θ -
α πα π α Θ α υ α , ὧ ὲ
Φ αα π , α Θ α , ὲ α ααΦ-
α, Ἀ αῖ .π α ὲ αὶ ὴ α -
α α Ὀ υ π α, Ἀ α αὶ π α . αὶ ὴ
Θ ὲ , π ὸ α ὸ α Θ α ὺ
α ὴ υ α α αὶ απ . α ὲ αὶ α π α
Ὀ υ π . πὶ π α ᾽ π α α ὶ ὴ ππ υ ὲ
ἀ φ ,Ἀ υ ὲἀ φ αὶ α π Ὀ υ π πα α
ὸ ὸ αυ ῦ υ . ὰ α ῖ ῖ ὲ Ἄ α-
:‘ ῦ , φ , αὶ α ῖ α .’
“Philip, on the other hand, routinely got married on campaign. During the 22
years he was king, at any rate, according to Satyrus in his On the Life of
Philip, he married Audata of Illyria and had a daughter named Cynna by her.
He also married Phila, who was the sister of Derdas and Machatas. And when
he wanted to get control of the Thessalians, he produced children by two
Thessalian women, one of whom was Nicesipolis of Pherae, who gave him a
daughter named Thettalonice, while the other was Philinna of Larisa, who be-
came the mother of Arrhidaeus. In addition, he acquired the Molossian throne
by marrying Olympias, who produced Alexander and Cleopatra for him. So
too, when he captured Thrace, the Thracian king Cothelas came to him bring-
ing his daughter Meda, along with a large number of gifts; after Philip mar-
ried her, he forced Olympias to live in the same house with her. On top of all
these women, he fell in love with Cleopatra, who was the sister of Hippo-

81
Just. 7.4.5.
82
Cf. Müller, 2013b: 32–34.
 S. Müller: A History of Misunderstandings? 475

stratus and the niece of Attalus, and married her, but when he forced Olym-
pias to share a house with her as well, he wrecked his entire life. For right
away, at the wedding feast, Attalus said: ‘Now, certainly, legitimate kings are
going to be born, and not just bastards’ ”.83
Satyrus who wrote during the third century BCE admits that there were political
reasons for Philip’s marriages. However, his Greek misinterpretation of the polyga-
mous Macedonian structures becomes evident when he mentions that Olympias was
forced to live together with the other wives and especially in the description of the
famous banquet scene at the wedding feast: Even Alexander is accused of being
illegitimate because he was one of several children from different wives.84
Plutarch also tells this story:
φα ὲἌ α πα ῖ π α , Φ π-
π πα , α ὶ πα ᾽ α , ῖ ὰ α
Ἄ α π ῳ πα ὺ α α α ῖ α πα ὰ
Φ ππ υ αὶ π α α α α,
πὶ ῳ πα υ ὶ Ἀ α αὶ π , ‘ ῖ ὲ , α ὴ φα ὴ,
ῦ ’.
“The most open quarrel was brought on by Attalus at the marriage of Cleo-
patra, a maiden whom Philip was taking to wife, having fallen in love with
the girl when he was past the age for it. Attalus, now, was the girl’s uncle,
and being in his cups, he called upon the Macedonians to ask of the gods that
from Philip and Cleopatra there might be born a legitimate successor to the
kingdom. At this Alexander was exasperated, and with the words, ‘But what
of me, base wretch? Dost thou take me for a bastard?’ threw a cup at him”.85
Of course, Alexander was by no means . Obviously, Cleopatra, being a mem-
ber of the clan of Philip’s most important and influential generals who were chosen
to prepare his Persian campaign,86 was more prestigious than his mother Olympias
but this did not deprive him of his legitimacy. This is also true for his brother
Arrhidaeus. Justin calls his mother Philinna a dancing-girl (saltatrix) and a prostitute
(scortum).87 Plutarch reports:
ὸ Ἀ αῖ ( ... ), α ὲ υ α ὸ ἀ υ αὶ Φ ,
ἀ ὲ ὸφ ῖ α ὰ α φ π π ῦ α ὲ
α , ἀ ὰ αὶ π υ φα ὶ πα ὸ α ῦ αφα α

83
Athen. 13.557 B–E. Trans. S. Douglas Olson. Cf. Carney, 2000.
84
Cf. Müller, 2003: 27–28; Hatzopoulos, 1986: 292; Wirth, 1985: 164–167.
85
Plut. Alex. 9.4. Trans. B. Perrin.
86
Diod. 16.91.2; 93.9; 17.2.4.
87
Just. 9.8.2: “Genuit ex Larissaea saltatrice filium Arridaeum, qui post Alexandrum regna-
vit.” Even worse: Just. 13.2.11: “( . . . ) quod ex Larissaeo scorto nasceretur.” Cf. Yardley/
Wheatley/Heckel, 2011: 70. Also Ptolemy the son of Agesarchus calls her a dancing-girl and
counts her as a royal mistress (eromena), not as a wife, among with Demetrius Poliorcetes
and his concubines (Athen. 13.578 A).
476 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

αὶ ἀ , α φα πὸ Ὀ υ π α α
αφ α α ὴ α .
“Arrhidaeus was Philip’s son by an obscure and common woman named
Philinna, and was deficient in intellect owing to bodily disease. This, how-
ever, did not come upon him in the course of nature or of its own accord, in-
deed, it is said that as a boy he displayed an exceedingly gifted and noble
disposition: but afterwards Olympias gave him drugs which injured his body
and ruined his mind”.88
The abusive representation of Philinna as without repute and common, even a prosti-
tute, will have been far from reality. Philinna probably belonged to the aristocratic
Aleuadae of her Thessalian hometown.89 Of course, the story that a jealous Olym-
pias tried to poison Alexander’s half-brother in order to get rid of any rival suits the
narrative pattern of revengeful and cruel women going berserk at polygamous
courts.90 It has been suggested that allegations of illegitimacy and low birth come
from dynastic quarrels and are a natural by-product of amphimetric strife. The dif-
ferent family branches struggle for the throne and try to mark out differences be-
tween the groups by bastardy claims.91 This would mean that the reports in the
Greek and Roman sources originate from Macedonian court propaganda. This may
be in some parts the case but more probable is that the allegations of illegitimacy
root in the Greek misunderstanding of the Argead polygamous court structures.
Thus, it was their interpretatio graeca that turned acknowledged wives into concu-
bines and legitimate sons into bastards of low birth. In consequence, the Greek im-
plicit moral code caused the failure to understand the polygamous structures and the
aspects of legitimacy and succession. Therefore, a distorted image of the Achaeme-
nid and the Argead court emerges from the Greek sources.

Results
Writing about the Argead court of Macedonia, the Greek (and, following them, also
the Roman) authors often adopt clichés about the Achaemenid court. Thus, their
reports indicate more about Greek polis-centered ideology and reflections about
Greek identity in contrast to the ‘other’ as well as a strong tendency to preserve
literary stereotypical traditions in a kind of ‘nostalgic’ way than about Macedonia.
However, the parallels will not only have been tributes to the Greek literary
legacy. Macedonia had been influenced by the Persian example. Hence, hidden
behind diverse layers of stereotypes, cultural bias and literary patterns, the impact of
Persia can be suspected.

88
Plut. Alex. 77.5. Trans. B. Perrin.
89
Cf. Yardley/Wheatley/Heckel, 2011: 71; Ogden, 1999: 25.
90
Cf. Brosius, 1998: 1.
91
Cf. Yardley/Wheatley/Heckel, 2011: 71; Ogden, 1999: ix; Mortensen, 1992.
 S. Müller: A History of Misunderstandings? 477

Bibliography
Aalders, G. J. D., 1982: Plutarch’s Political Thought. Amsterdam.
Almagor, E., 2013: “Proskynesis”. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 5588.
Asirvatham, S., 2009: “The Roots of Macedonian Ambiguity in Classical Athenian
Literature”. In T. Howe / J. Reames (eds.): Macedonian Legacies. Claremont.
Pp. 235–255.
Badian, E., 1994: “Herodotus on Alexander I of Macedon. A Study in Some Subtle
Silence”. In S. Hornblower (ed.): Greek Historiography. Oxford. Pp. 107–130.
— 2003: “Alexander the Great between Two Thrones and Heaven. Variations on an
Old Theme”. In I. Worthington (ed.): Alexander the Great. A Reader. London /
New York. Pp. 245–262.
Berve, H., 1926: Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage. Vol. 2.
München.
Bichler, R., 2010: “Der Hof der Achämeniden in den Augen Herodots”. In B. Jacobs
/ R. Rollinger (eds.): Der Achämenidenhof. Akten des 2. Internationalen Kollo-
quiums zum Thema „Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientali-
scher Überlieferungen“. Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.–25. Mai 2007. Classica
et Orientalia 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 155–187.
Binder, C., 2011: “Plutarch und Ktesias”. In J. Wiesehöfer / R. Rollinger / G. B.
Lanfranchi (eds.): Ktesias’ Welt. Classica et Orientalia 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 53–68.
Böhme, M., 2009: “Das Perserbild in den Fragmenten der Alexanderhistoriker”. In
M. Rathmann (ed.): Studien zur antiken Geschichtsschreibung. Bonn. Pp. 161–
186.
Bosworth, A. B., 1980/1995: A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alex-
ander. Vol. 1–2. Oxford.
— 1988: From Arrian to Alexander. Oxford.
Briant, P., 2002a: From Cyrus to Alexander. Winona Lake.
— 2002b: “History and Ideology. The Greeks and ‘Persian Decadence’”. In T. Har-
rison (ed.): Greeks and Barbarians. Edinburgh. Pp. 192–236.
Brosius, M., 1998: Women in Ancient Persia 559–331 BCE. Oxford.
— 2003: “Why Persia became the Enemy of Macedon”. In W. Henkelman / A.
Kuhrt (eds.): A Persian Perspective. Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-
Weerdenburg. Achaemenid History 13. Leiden. Pp. 227–238.
Carney, E. D., 1993: “Foreign Influence and the Changing Role of Macedonian
Royal Women”. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Atheni-
sche Abteilung 5, 313–323.
— 2000: Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman.
Flower, M., 2000: “Alexander the Great and Panhellenism”. In A. B. Bosworth /
E. Baynham (eds.): Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford. Pp. 96–
135.
Geiger, J., 2002: “Felicitas Temporum and Plutarch’s Choice of Heroes”. In P. A.
Stadter / L. van der Stockt (eds.): Sage and Emperor. Leuven. Pp. 93–101.
Geyer, F., 1930: Makedonien bis zur Thronbesteigung Philipps II. München/Berlin.
478 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

Greenwalt, W. S., 1989: “Polygamy and Succession in Argead Macedonia”. Are-

thusa 22, 19–43.
Hatzopoulos, M. B., 1986: “Succession and Regency in Classical Macedonia”. Mit-
teilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 4,
272–292.
— 1996: Macedonian Institutions under the Kings 1. A Historical and Epigraphic
Study. Athen.
Heckel, W., 2006: Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great. Oxford.
Heinrichs, J. / Müller, S., 2008: “Ein persisches Statussymbol auf Münzen Alexand-
ers I. von Makedonien”. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 167, 283–
309.
Jacobs, B., 2010: “Höfischer Lebensstil und materielle Prachtentfaltung”. In B.
Jacobs / R. Rollinger (eds.): Der Achämenidenhof. Akten des 2. Internationalen
Kolloquiums zum Thema „Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altori-
entalischer Überlieferungen“. Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.–25. Mai 2007.
Classica et Orientalia 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 377–409.
Kienast, D., 1973: Philipp II. von Makedonien und das Reich der Achaimeniden.
München.
Kuhlmann, K. P., 1988: Das Ammoneion. Mainz.
Madreiter, I., 2012: Stereotypisierung – Idealisierung – Indifferenz. Formen der
Auseinandersetzung mit dem Achaimeniden-Reich in der griechischen Persika-
Literatur. Classica et Orientalia 4. Wiesbaden.
Macurdy, G. H., 1932: Hellenistic Queens. Baltimore/London.
Meuus, A., 2009: “Alexander’s Image in the Age of the Successors”. In W. Heckel /
L. A. Tritle (eds.): Alexander the Great. A New History. Oxford. Pp. 235–250.
Mortensen, K., 1992: “Eurydice. Demonic or Devoted Mother?”. Ancient History
Bulletin 6, 156–171.
Müller, S., 2003: Maßnahmen der Herrschaftssicherung gegenüber der makedoni-
schen Opposition bei Alexander dem Großen. Frankfurt am Main.
— 2007: “Luxus, Sittenverfall, Verweichlichung und Kriegsuntüchtigkeit. Die
Codes der Dekadenz in den antiken Quellen”. In C. Hoffstadt / M. Nagenborg /
F. Peschke / A. Schulz-Buchta (eds.): Dekadenzen. Bochum/Freiburg. Pp. 13–52.
— 2011: “Die frühen Perserkönige im kulturellen Gedächtnis der Makedonen und
in der Propaganda Alexanders d. Gr.”. Gymnasium 118, 105–133.
— 2013a: “Siwa Oasis”. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 6274–6275.
— 2013b: “Das symbolische Kapital der makedonischen Herrscherfrauen”. In C.
Kunst (ed.): Matronage. Soziale Netzwerke von Herrscherfrauen im Altertum in
diachroner Perspektive. Osnabrück. Pp. 31–42.
— 2014: Alexander, Makedonien und Persien. Berlin. (forthcoming)
Natoli, A. F., 2004: The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II. Stuttgart.
Ogden, D., 1999: Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death. The Hellenistic Dynasties. Lon-
don.
Paspalas, S. A., 2000: “On Persian-type Furniture in Macedonia. The Recognition
and Transmission of Forms”. American Journal of Archaeology 104, 531–600.
 S. Müller: A History of Misunderstandings? 479

— 2008: “The Achaemenid Lion-Griffin on a Macedonian Tomb Painting and on a

Sicyonian Mosaic”. In S. M. Reza Darbandi / A. Zournatzi (eds.): Ancient
Greece and Ancient Iran. Athen. Pp. 301–325.
Pownall, F., 2004: Lessons from the Past. The Moral Use of History in Fourth Cen-
tury Prose. Ann Arbor.
— 2009: “The Decadence of the Thessalians. A Topos in the Greek Intellectual
Tradition from Critias to the Time of Alexander”. In P. Wheatley / R. Hannah
(eds.): Alexander and his Successors. Essays from the Antipodes. Claremont. Pp.
237–260.
— 2010: “The Symposia of Philip II and Alexander III of Macedon. The View from
Greece”. In E. D. Carney / D. Ogden (eds.): Philip II and Alexander the Great.
Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives. Oxford. Pp. 55–65.
Prandi, L., 1985: Callistene. Uno storico tra Aristotele e i re macedoni. Milano.
Raaflaub, K., 2009: “Learning from the Enemy. Athenian and Persian ‘Instruments
of Empire’ ”. In J. Ma / N. Papazarkadas / R. Parker (eds.): Interpreting the Athe-
nian Empire. London. Pp. 89–124.
Rollinger, R., 2011: “Herrscherkult und Königsvergöttlichung bei Teispiden und
Achaimeniden. Realität oder Fiktion?”. In L.-M. Günther / S. Plischke (eds.):
Studien zum vorhellenistischen und hellenistischen Herrscherkult. Berlin. Pp.
11–54.
Ruffing, K., 2014: “Gifts for Cyrus, Tribute to Dareios”. In T. Harrison / L. Irwin
(eds.): The Past in the Present. Interpreting Herodotus after Charles W. For-
nara. New York. (forthcoming)
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C., 1993: “Aspects of Ancient Macedonian Costume”. The
Journal of Hellenic Studies 113, 122–147.
Schmidt, T. S., 1999: Plutarque et les barbares. Louvain/Namur.
Spawforth, A., 2007: “The Court of Alexander the Great between Europe and Asia”.
In A. Spawforth (ed.): The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies.
Cambridge. Pp. 82–120.
Truschnegg, B., 2011: “Geschlechteraspekte in den Schriften des Ktesias”. In
J. Wiesehöfer / R. Rollinger / G. B. Lanfranchi (eds.): Ktesias’ Welt. Classica et
Orientalia 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 403–447.
van de Mieroop, M., 2007: A History of the Ancient Near East. Oxford.
Wiesehöfer, J., 1999: Das frühe Persien. München.
— 1996: “‘King of Kings’ and ‘Philhellên’. Kingship in Arsacid Iran”. In P. Bilde /
T. Engberg–Pedersen / L. Hannestad / J. Zahle (eds.): Aspects of Hellenistic
Kingship. Aarhus. Pp. 55–66.
— 2004: “‚Persien, der faszinierende Feind der Griechen‘. Güteraustausch und
Kulturtransfer in achaimenidischer Zeit”. In R. Rollinger / C. Ulf (eds.): Com-
merce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World. Means of Transmission and
Cultural Interaction. Stuttgart. Pp. 295–310.
— 2011: “Ktesias und der achaimenidische Hof ”. In J. Wiesehöfer / R. Rollinger /
G. B. Lanfranchi (eds.): Ktesias’ Welt. Classica et Orientalia 1. Wiesbaden. Pp.
499–505.
Wirth, G., 1985: Philipp II. Geschichte Makedoniens 1. Köln.
480 The World of Politics: ‘Democracy’, Citizens, and ‘Polis’

— 1989: “Alexander, Kassander und andere Zeitgenossen”. Tyche 4, 193–220.

Worman, N., 2008: Abusive Mouths in Classical Athens. Cambridge.
Yardley, J. / Wheatley, P. / Heckel, W., 2011: Justin. Epitome of the Philippic His-
tory of Pompeius Trogus. Vol. II: Books 13–15. Oxford.
Zahrnt, M., 1992: “Der Mardonioszug des Jahres 492 v. Chr. und seine historische
Einordnung”. Chiron 22, 237–279.
— 2011: “Herodot und die makedonischen Könige”. In R. Rollinger / B. Trusch-
negg / R. Bichler (eds.): Herodot und das persische Weltreich. Akten des 3. In-
ternationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema „Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassi-
scher und altorientalischer Überlieferungen“. Innsbruck, 24.–28. November
2008. Classica et Orientalia 3. Wiesbaden. Pp. 761–777.