Macedonia in the Mid-Fourth Century B.C.

p In the middle of the fourth century B.C. a new Balkan state started to rise to prominence. This was Macedonia, destined to become a powerful rival of Persia in the struggle for hegemony over Greece and the Middle East.

p In its economic and political structure Macedonia differed sharply from the other Greek states. It had no outlet to the sea and for a long time was unable to engage in overseas trade or colonisation. As a result of this Macedonia was a good deal less advanced than the other parts of Greece: it was an agrarian country and the vast majority of its people were peasants.

p After the Peloponnesian War, Macedonia began to rapidly absorb Greek civilisation. Yet it was not so much industrial techniques, trade and culture that Macedonia assimilated from the Greeks as military skills. Philip II (359-336 B.C.) was responsible for the creation of a mighty army and the introduction of the famous "Macedonian phalanx”. Heavy infantry (hoplites) was deployed in rows 16-20 deep and the warriors were armed with lances (up to 15 feet long), the back rows resting their lances on the shoulders of those in front of them. This compact mass of heavy infantry protected with enormous shields made a formidable force.

p The pride of the Macedonian army was the heavy cavalry consisting of the Macedonian nobility (hetaeras or companions of the emperor). Another important feature of the Macedonian army was its various siege equipment.

In the mid-fourth century Macedonia had come to constitute a major power in the northern Balkans thanks to its armed forces. Part of Epirus and Thrace were conquered and from that time on Macedonia was to play a decisive role in the affairs of the Greek states.

Macedonia and Greece

p The original excuse for Philip’s interference in Greek affairs was the war which broke out in 355 between Thebes and the small state of Phocis into which Athens was also drawn.

p Philip II routed the Phocians and became master of the whole of northern Greece. He succeeded in conquering Thessaly, most of the Chalcidice peninsula and the littoral of Thrace almost as far as the Bosporus. Macedonia was thus able to become a maritime power and could control the main waterways from Greece into the Black Sea.

p The only Greek state which was still able to put up a certain measure of resistance to Philip of Macedonia was Athens. However, within Athens itself there were two rival factions. The supporters of the pro-Macedonian faction held the view that an alliance with Philip was the only way to put an end to the constant internal strife and feuds; under Philip the Greeks might unite and start a "holy war" against Persia, which apart from revenge for "defamation of the shrines" promised rich booty. The anti-Macedonian faction was led by the celebrated orator Demosthenes. He pointed out that an alliance with Philip would mean loss of freedom, independence and democracy. Demosthenes was able to rally together a strong anti-Macedonian coalition, in which Athens was joined by Thebes, Corinth and some other states.

p In August 338 the issue was settled at the battle of Chaeronea in Boeotia. The Macedonian phalanx proved its worth and the Greeks were routed. The left flank of the Macedonian army was commanded by Philip’s son Alexander, who was just 18. After the victory, Philip convened a pan-Hellenic congress in Corinth, at which important decisions were taken. An alliance of all Greek states was formed and internecine wars were forbidden. The federation of Greek states concluded a permanent defensive and aggressive alliance with the Macedonian king and it was decided to go to war with Persia.

Philip II started to make careful preparations for this new war. In 336 his advance guard crossed the Hellespont and set foot on the territory of Asia Minor. The war with Persia had begun. But at this juncture Philip was assassinated.

Alexander’s Eastern Campaign

p Alexander of Macedon was 20 when he came to the throne. However, it would be wrong to infer that he was not equipped to carry out the important role which awaited him. From an early age he had always accompanied his father into battle and was 83 already an accomplished military commander. He had also received a fine education from his mentor and teacher Aristotle. Alexander was very fond of literature and was well-versed in the Iliad, Achilles being his favourite hero.

p When he came to the throne after the mysterious and unexpected murder of his father, Alexander found himself in a difficult position. As soon as the news of Philip’s death reached the Greek cities unrest broke out. The anti-Macedonian faction in Athens—Demosthenes was still alive—raised its voice again, while in Thebes revolt broke out. However, the young emperor by means of extremely thorough, and sometimes cruel measures (such as the destruction of Thebes and the sale of its people into slavery) succeeded in putting an end to all resistance to Macedonian rule.

p In 334 Alexander launched his famous Eastern Campaign. His army was not particularly large: it consisted of about 30,000 foot soldiers, 5,000 cavalry and a fleet of 150-160 warships. Alexander’s army crossed the Hellespont and then advanced through Asia Minor. The first battle with the Persians took place on the shores of the river Granicus. Although Alexander was obliged to force a crossing under Persian fire he nevertheless succeeded in defeating the enemy, thus opening the way into Asia. He then marched south along the coast freeing the Greek cities from Persian domination as he went.

p In the year 333 B.C. near the town of Issus (in the south- eastern part of Asia Minor) Alexander had to face the main forces of the Persian King Darius III. The Persian troops outnumbered Alexander’s army and he resorted to a bold manoeuvre. He led his left flank of light infantry and cavalry a long way forward, skirting Darius’ army and attacking it from the rear. In this way he succeeded in surrounding and routing the Persians and Darius was obliged to flee to avoid capture.

p Alexander then set off for the Phoenician coast, and after taking Tyre made his way to Egypt. Here he declared himself liberator of the Egyptians from the Persians and the priests proclaimed him to be the son of the God Amon and the heir of the Pharaohs.

In 331 Alexander set off once again deep into Asia, and fought his last great battle against Darius at Gaugamela (not far from Nineveh). Once again the Persians were defeated and Darius forced to flee. In pursuit of Darius Alexander’s army marched deep into Persia and captured its three capitals on the way, Babylon, Susa and Persepolis. In these towns Alexander was able to lay his hands on fabulous treasures. In Babylon he solemnly proclaimed himself King of Persia. In pursuit of Darius and later his satraps Alexander crossed the river Oxus (Amu-Darya) 84 and set foot on the territory of present-day Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Here he spent approximately two years (till 327) and then enticed by tales of India’s fabulous wealth he invaded northern India. Here he defeated the troops of the Indian King Porus in a battle in which, incidentally, both Greeks and Macedonians were to come across war elephants for the first time.

p Alexander’s army advanced as far as a left tributary of the river Indus, when events took a most unexpected turn. His troops who had hitherto shown no sign of insubordination, stubbornly refused to go any further. After two days’ deliberation Alexander was obliged to concede and give the order to return homewards. The return march lasted for a further two years. Part of the troops went by sea and the others by land along the shores of the Persian Gulf, both parts of the army joining forces in Babylon in 324.

So ended Alexander’s great Eastern Campaign which lasted for ten years. It enabled him to set up an enormous empire stretching from the Adriatic Sea in the west to India in the east, from the foothills of the Caucasus in the north to the central reaches of the Nile in the south. However, Alexander was not destined to enjoy his unprecedented power for long: the year after his return in 323 B.C. at the age of 32 he met his death and immediately afterwards his enormous empire started to disintegrate.

The Significance of Alexander’s Conquests. The Hellenistic Age

p The reasons behind Alexander the Great’s victory over the Persian army are perfectly clear and logical. The well-organised Greco-Macedonian army led by a military genius had little 85 difficulty in overcoming enemy forces made up of a wide assortment of tribes and peoples, including mercenaries. Indeed the enormous Persian Empire was far from firmly welded together: it was a perfect example of the proverbial clay-legged colossus.

p Alexander subdued the Persian Empire by force of arms, but the task of consolidating it as a united centralised state proved beyond his power. There was no inner unity of an economic or political kind between the various states and regions incorporated in the Persian Empire. Thus, the empire of Alexander the 86 Great soon fell apart as a result of the strife between his successors. The main states which were then to embark on an independent existence were Egypt, where the Ptolemaic dynasty established itself, the Syrian Kingdom (embracing Syria, Palestine, Babylon and the whole of the Persian Empire as far as the river Indus), where the Seleucid dynasty asserted itself, and finally Macedonia, which retained its hegemony over Greece and the coast of Asia Minor, which fell to Antigonus Gonatas and his successors. The founders of all these dynasties, Ptolemy, Seleucus and Antigonus Gonatas were Alexander’s military commanders and successors.

p It would be wrong to assume that because Alexander’s empire proved short-lived, his Eastern Campaign did not have far- reaching historical consequences. The opposite is true: the period from the death of Alexander till the Roman conquest of Greece and the Middle East is commonly known as the Hellenistic age. We use the word Hellenism in speaking of the establishment of Greek domination over the Middle East and the reciprocal influences of the Greek and Eastern civilisations in the fields of economy, political organisation and culture.

p Hellenism was undoubtedly a progressive factor. The Hellenistic age saw a rapid growth of towns, which became centres of trade and advanced industry. The Middle East set up closer economic and cultural ties with the western Mediterranean and the Far East (by way of India). The reciprocal influence between the two cultures proved particularly fruitful. In a number of Hellenistic states intellectual and cultural activity flourished. Important scientific and artistic centres, such as Antioch, the capital of the Seleucid Kingdom, and Alexandria, the capital of Ptolemaic Egypt, grew up. In Alexandria a remarkable scientific foundation was established which was to bring the town universal fame. It was known as the Museum (temple dedicated to the Muses) and consisted of a large library, a vast collection of rare objects and works of art, and was used as a meeting place for scholars, where learned gatherings and debates took place. The Hellenistic period gave the world a number of outstanding mathematicians, astronomers, geographers such as Euclid, Eratosthenes, Archimedes, Hipparchus and Hero. During this period the Greek language became the lingua franca of the whole of the eastern shores of the Mediterranean and this factor also served to promote the cultural unity of the Hellenistic countries.

All these achievements of the Hellenistic states in the economic and the cultural spheres prepared the way for the unification of all the Mediterranean states. This was soon to be achieved by Rome, whose empire was eventually to include all the civilised countries of the Mediterranean basin.