Alexander the Great - The Opis Oath

"Now that the wars are coming to an end, I wish you to prosper in peace. May all mortals from now on live like one people in concord and for mutual advancement. Consider the world as your country, with laws common to all and where the best will govern irrespective of tribe. I do not distinguish among men, as the narrow-minded do, both among Greeks and Barbarians. I am not interested in the descendance of the citizens or their racial origins. I classify them using one criterion: their virtue. For me every virtuous foreigner is a Greek and every evil Greek worse than a Barbarian. If differences ever develop between you never have recourse to arms, but solve them peacefully. If necessary, I should be your arbitrator. You must not consider God like an autocratic despot, but as a common Father of all; so your behaviour may resemble the life siblings have in a family. On my part I should consider all equals, white or blacks, and wish you all to be not only subjects of the Commonwealth, but participants and partners. As much as this depends on me, I should try to bring about what I promised. The oath we made over tonight’s libations hold onto as a Contract of Love."

One of the most hotly disputed utterances of Alexander the Great is his reputed Oath at Opis. As Alexander and others poured libations from one giant cup during the reconciliation feast (see post above) Arrian reports that “He prayed for other blessings, and especially that harmony and community of rule might exist between the Macedonians and Persians”.

Pseudo-Callisthenes, the unknown author of The Alexander Romance, collections of legends around the mythical exploits of Alexander, is given by some as the source of the so-called Oath at Opis in which Alexander goes further than praying for harmony within his empire. He purportedly goes on to extol the Brotherhood of Man.

Historians all cast doubt on this claim. Perhaps Pseudo-Kallisthenes was carried away by his vivid imagination, perhaps not. Arrian states only that Alexander expressed a wish that every nation he had conquered would co-exist in peace. Surely that in itself is pretty progressive sentiment for the fourth century BC!

Argument supporting the view that Alexander really did make this speech:

ALEXANDER THE GREAT - SUI GENERIS

Argument for rejecting the notion:

ALEXANDER THE GREAT - SUI GENERIS (REVISITED)

The Nature of Alexander - A. Kallistos

THE NATURE OF ALEXANDER
by Alexandros Kallistos

"A deep, great, genuine sincerity is the first characteristic of all men in any way heroic." - Thomas Carlyle.

By definition Alexander was, and remains a heroic figure. Rightly or wrongly the Western World has regarded him as such for more than 2000 years and this is what he believed to be his life role from early childhood. He did not purposely set out to become a hero; he sincerely believed that he was a hero born, and like most people with such deep seated and sincere beliefs, the reality succeeded the belief.

Alexander was born by a queen born of a queen and sired by a king sired by a king. He was aware of his royal and divine lineage from the start. In his childhood years when his self image was forming, this knowledge must perforce become a part of who he was to become; it could not have been otherwise. He was raised in a palace surrounded by the powerful in the seat of power. His family was believed by all to be different from others and he, by blood as well.

In Macedonian tradition the immediate family members of Alexander, the Argead dynasty, were considered to be of divine descent and as family members of the gods, stood somewhere between the divine and the mortal. It was for this reason that the young child, Alexander saw his father ask his other relatives, the gods, for the well being of Macedon every day. This was the reason that his family the Argeads, held power over the rest of the people of Macedon. Kings might come and go, but all were Argeads and all must be of his own partially divine blood which set him apart from the rest of the world.

This early childhood message must have had some input into his image of who he was. It is not possible that there was not some distance between Alexander’s conception of his societal role and the ordinary Macedonian shepherd soldier. It was reinforced daily from the beginning. He could not have escaped it.

Alexander was raised with the gilded youth of Macedon and was first among them. Just like prince Charles at Sandhurst had friends among the other students, there is an unspoken gap: he is to be king over us. In the case of Alexander, this is a far wider gap as he is not only socially superior, he is religiously set apart as well. There can be no doubt that this influenced the developing nature of Alexander. All of Macedon believed this whole heatedly and so must have Alexander. It could not have been otherwise.

Thus we can see that the character of Alexander is developing along lines which would necessarily cause him to see himself as different and especially set apart from others. Here one can see the nature of Alexander being formed in early childhood.

The palace at Pella covers nearly 15 acres of ground above the city and is surrounded by a wall and it is here that Alexander spent his earliest years amidst the aristocracy of Macedon. His playmates were the sons of the powerful and all were accompanied by slaves. Each knew Alexander to be the probable next king. This would, most certainly have effected his self image. He grew up in the firm knowledge that he was unique amongst his peers and that all of them were special. This is one of the important things to consider in accessing his character. He knew during his early childhood development that he was related to the gods and that he was to be a king and this knowledge was daily reinforced by all around him.

From the beginning, Alexander was carefully instructed in the history and religion of his culture and these were inextricably interrelated. The people of his day saw no difference between history and myth; they were the same. He knew from an early age that he was of the same family as Zeus, the king of the gods and of Herakles, the greatest hero of all time. His blood was their blood. It was a given fact that Herackles, born half mortal, had become a god by his courageous acts. Any sort of logic would have made it obvious that if his ancestor could do it so could he. He got that message very early in his life.

The culture of all the Hellenes valued arete, (excellence). In the society of the day it was considered to be a positive value to excel others and to be seen to excel. This is an aristocratic ideal and not very popular today in our egalitarian society. Excellence is looked upon with some suspicion in all but sports and entertainment. In the time of Alexander, everyone wished to be seen as better than the ordinary. This value was instilled from childhood in all Hellenes and most strove to exceed and be perceived as excelling others. The idea of being famed for ones superiority was a prime motivating force of action. A Hellene's reputation among other Hellenes was of the utmost importance to him. This was as true in a small neighborhood community as it was upon the throne of a nation.

Born into his unique social position, set above even the aristocrats, who was Alexander to excel? He was fond of running; the sprint was his best sport and when enjoined to participate in a foot race, he answered that he would do so, but only against other princes. This is illustrative of his self image. In his estimation, by his very birth he had already exceeded the common athlete. He would have to look higher to exceed and he did.

The societal values of ancient Macedon in the 4th century BCE were closer to the Homeric 8th century than they were to the rest of Hellas. In a country at the edge of civilization, surrounded by barbarian marauders, this was necessary to survival. The men of Alexanders time and place clung to the warrior values which had long ago been mitigated in places like Attica. He was raised on the stories of the Trojan war and on the militaristic poetry of Homer. This was a way of life and a gender role for all Macedonian men and Alexander was by no means an exception. It was Achilles who was held up as a perfect role model not Pericles. It was Achilles that Alexander most admired and if he was to excel, here was the competitor worthy of his blood.

From a very early age Alexander was imbued with an image of the qualities of a great king and in every case, a great king increased his kingdom through conquest. Philip was a handy example. He had significantly increased the territory of Macedon and the influence of his kingdom in the Hellenic world. He was very much lauded by his subjects for making of a small and relatively unimportant backwater kingdom a major power with which to be dealt. Cyrus the great was another admired example. He had done much the same thing. He made of a small kingdom of Media into The Persian Empire and although he might be despised in Hellas, his accomplishments were generally admired by all. These, to Alexander and the rest of the Hellenic world, were great kings. If he were to become a great king, this would have to be a part of what he did. This message must have been instilled in him from a very early age. Alexander did what he thought he ought to properly do and he must have recognized the gargantuan task of excelling both Philip and Cyrus at a very young age. To others this may have seemed a childish dream, but Alexander had already formed the sincere belief that he could achieve his goal. This unwavering, rock solid conviction was what enabled him to succeed.

The boy prince grew into a man holding these facts to be incontrovertible. He was of divine lineage and the blood of the gods ran in his veins. He was descended from the greatest hero of all times who had become divine through his heroism and he was to become a king. These were beliefs formed in early childhood and immutable. He held them until his death. To Alexander this was not myth: it was simple fact. This was who he believed himself to be; this was his very real role in life.

In contemporary times anyone who held these beliefs about himself would be considered to be mad, but it should be stressed that most of the world of the time agreed with Alexander and supported his beliefs. All of these things which Alexander believed about himself, the rest of the Hellenic world did not dismiss lightly. His divine nature might be scoffed at by the more sophisticated of the Athenians, but to the common man of the day this was not at all unlikely.

It is with these core beliefs about himself which we must begin to look at the character of Alexander. Here we had a boy who grew into manhood firmly convinced that he was different, superior,and semi divine. Here was a man absolutely confident that he could exceed all others with effort if he chose to do so and he made that choice. Alexander chose the path of arete in all things and he never deviated from it.

The Greek view of the afterlife was not a cheerful one. Mortals after death descended to the underworld of Hades, a gloomy place of shadow and eternal sadness. No mortal escaped. Only those who had achieved immortality were spared. All are agreed that Alexander was a conservative religious person who firmly believed in the common religious concepts of his day. Therefore, he must have accepted this as fact. Death could not have seemed an appealing prospect. Happily, there was for him a chance of escaping the ordinary fate of mortals and that was to achieve immortality. In Alexander’s mind this was far from a radical idea. He was descended from the king of the gods, he was related to Herakles who had done exactly the same thing. He had the qualifications and the tools to, through his own efforts, escape death itself. He consciously pursued this goal throughout his life and he sincerely believed that he could achieve it.

It was only through extraordinary achievement that a mortal could become divine. The gods which Greece had created were themselves no more than extraordinary mortals with enhanced powers. The concept of becoming a god through heroic actions was not at all a remarkable one in Alexander’s day. It was, in fact strongly believed.

Arete is the motif of Alexander’s life. His much touted, “pothos”, is a longing not, to obtain as most men long to do, but to achieve, and achievement of the extraordinary is the constant goal easily discernible in the life of the great Alexander. It is everywhere evident from what we know of his youngest years from Plutarch, to the end. Why this insatiable drive to achieve and achieve more and then more? We have already seen his firm belief that he could escape death itself by heroic and socially acceptable action. Surely this must be a part of the reasons for his actions. It may be the basis for the nature of Alexander. Social approbation and unlimited power, great wealth and undying fame may be peripheral rewards, but the bottom line is, Alexander sincerely believed he could achieve even the negation of death.

He must have believed that his semi divine nature made it not unreasonable that he could transcend mortality and take the one step needed for him to become a god. Given the foundation of his beliefs built up from his earliest years, this is not an inordinate logical progression and it was unequivocally supported by both his religion and his society. There is indeed, no reason why he should not believe this.

What then is the nature of a man who holds the belief that he may become a god? This is surely the first example of a Hellenic man in ancient times who held the pre-Christian belief that he was preparing in this life to achieve a better life after death. There were to be certain, sects which had advanced that idea. The vague allusions to the blessed isles which have survived and the mysteries of Eleusis both hint at a happy afterlife for the few. Alexander, as usual, aimed even higher. He strove to achieve apotheosis. There can be no doubt that his firm belief in this possibility influenced his character and his outlook upon his life. He seems never to have feared death and it is possible that that is because he did not think that it applied to him. He most probably,considered his death to be no more than the doorway to Olympus and eternal bliss.

Alexander’s belief in the achievement of immortality was further enhanced in Asia. In Egypt as pharaoh, he was by definition, a god. One of the titles of all pharaohs was, son of Ammon. Despite all the discussion about the slip of the tongue of a priest at Siwa, this was one of his official titles and not at all an extraordinary way for a priest to greet any pharaoh. Indeed, from an Egyptian point of view, it would be quite proper and ordinary and had our sources been written by an Egyptian hand, have caused not the slightest comment in Egypt. This was remarkable only to Greeks because of their own ethnocentric viewpoint. Due to the Greek propensity for equating the gods of other cultures to gods of their own, this amounted to an official religious recognition of Alexander as the son of Zeus and as A Hellene, it is entirely possible that this made some impression upon Alexander, himself, but surely he did not consider himself a god because some Egyptian priest addressed him as the son of Ammon.

Alexander well knew what the nature of a god was in his religion. He was certainly aware that when he tired, when his old wounds hurt, when he was hungry or thirsty, he was no god. Gods knew not pain nor did they eat anything other than ambrosia. Alexander was certain that he was no god every time he ate a roasted chicken, yet that would not prevent him from the sincere belief that he might be becoming one. That possibility was still a core belief.

The sincere belief that quite soon you will be a god in the heavens must without question effect ones nature and in the case of Alexander who could have held this belief as a possibility since childhood, it must have seriously effected his personality.

Alexander’s very nature was imbued with the desire to exceed from his earliest years. He without doubt, believed that he was special and different from all other men. He was from the beginning, aware that he was related to the gods. There is no way that these tenets could help but contribute to his character. He behaved the way he did because of who he believed himself to be. This was his self image and like all other men, his nature was based upon his self image and his actions were based upon his nature. He believed sincerely that he was born to be a hero and he therefore was. He believed sincerely that he would be a great king and he was. He believed sincerely that he could become a god and in a sense, he may have done so. His worship was finally forbidden by the Christian church in the 5th century. To this day people evoke his name and wear his image for luck. Sailors in Greece still recite in a storm,

Πού είναι Μέγας Αλέξανδρος?
Μέγας Αλέξανδρος, ζει και βασιλεύει.

Where is great Alexander?
Great Alexander, lives and reigns.

It is his nature.

Alexander the Great - Mother Olympia

OLYMPIAS MOTHER OF ALEXANDER
by Alexandros Kallistos

No one in history has been more reviled than Olympias, the mother of Alexander. She has universally been condemned as an evil, scheming, murderous witch. The only good words ever written about her are that she was beautiful and she loved her son.

That she was beautiful cannot be doubted; even those contemporaries who most hated her concede this. The only surviving portrait of her is on a coin of the period and tells us nothing. It is simply a standard Greek head of a beautiful woman in the style of the day. Like the face on the cover of a contemporary fashion magazine, it says nothing about the woman other than the obvious fact that she is beautiful. Given her lineage and the knowledge that she was from The North, it is probable that she was fair. Mary Renault supposes her to have had red hair and that is not unlikely as that was most common in her area. Epirus shares boarders with the Celt Illyrian tribes and these fierce barbarians are Celtic peoples. She was born a princess of Epirus, a small semi barbaric kingdom to the northwest of Greece which is now Albania. Her father was killed when she was young and the new king, her uncle, raised her as his own.

She was descended from Neoptolemus, King of Aegina, who was the grandfather of Hercules and had semi divine, as well as, royal lineage. It is through his mother, Olympias, that Alexander traced back his blood to Hercules, the hero God that so influenced his life.

How she loved her son, Alexander, is another, more complicated question. Olympias was a woman in a world of men. In a time and place where women were considered to be somewhat less than human, Olympias held power over men. This fact alone would have been enough to extract the most severe criticism. Coupled with her haughty nature, it produced an excoriation which has not been duplicated in any other woman.

As a Epirote woman of the fourth century B.C., her power could only be possible through a man; this man was, at first, Philip II, King of Macedon. Being his wife and Queen gave her extraordinary power. The Marriage was said to be a love match in the beginning and though that is possible, The resulting alliance gave Philip some much needed security on his very volatile northwestern frontier. Epirus stood most conveniently between Macedon and the marauding tribes of The Northwest who regularly invaded and pillaged Macedon and Northern Greece.

Philip had at least 5 wives and all of them brought to the marriage some sort of political advantage. For Philip, sexual partners were available in great abundance and variety, marriages provided important alliances and the chance of a legitimate heir. The relationship between Olympias and Philip was stormy to say the least. Olympias was a foreign woman at the center of what was rapidly becoming the greatest power in The Western World; she produced her ultimate weapon, a male heir, Alexander. As long as Philip was King and Alexander his only heir, she was unassailable. and could wield her power even over The King. When Philip divorced her and she went back to Epiros, Alexander was her only real power. Should Philip’s new wife bear him a pure blood Macedonian heir, he would present a threat where none had existed before and Olympias would no longer be certain of the position of Queen Mother. Furthermore, should Alexander marry and beget a son, Olympias would never again have the right to claim the title of, “Queen of Macedon”. I have never been convinced that Olympias was in such a great hurry to get Alexander married off.

The assassination of Philip changed everything. Alexander was King and nothing would be the same for anyone. Olympias returned to Pella and did what any man of the times would do. In the age old tradition of Macedon, she destroyed both Kleopatra, Philips latest wife, and her hapless child. All prudent rulers of Macedon had done much the same thing, but they were men. As she was a woman, this was thought to be monstrous cruelty. It is reported that she put the little tike on the barby. The story seems very like sensationalism to me, but perhaps it is true. Olympias was not a pretty pink Greek princess, she was a wild Mollosian women, half civilized, from Epiros; the tiger does what the tiger will do, and who will blame it?

Her son became, Alexander The Great, the ruler of most of the known world. He could, and did, curb her powers, and give her direct orders which she could not refuse. She was, from her first breath to her last, ruled by men even her son; it was the way of the times. Unlike most women of her day, Olympias fought back. She fought men all of her life. She used her only possible weapons, influence and superstition. She used all of her influence with men to pit one against the other; she used the rites of her male god, Dionysus, to frighten men. She was a baccante and, in her position she must have been a high priestess in Macedon where Euripides wrote, “ The Bacchae “. It is the story of the wild and irrational side of woman, and Olympias was a woman.
She was a strong woman totally dominated by men and she reacted with rage and hatred. Whenever she felt slighted or in danger she struck.

At his birth Alexander became a weapon. He was the power of Olympias, her only real influence on Philip, her husband and her king. He was the trump card which she played until the time when it no longer worked.

Olympias was a woman who achieved power and fame against impossible odds. That she achieved this through others has little bearing upon the fact; she did achieve it. Whether or not she loved her son is immaterial; if she did, it is not remarkable enough to be a saving grace. If she did not, it would make little difference to Alexander. He was twenty one in the spring of 334 when he left her; he was never to see her again. Olympias would have been quite happy to sit upon the throne of Persia; Alexander never sent for her.

The entire Hellenic world was thrown into political chaos at the death of Alexander. Alexander's retarded half brother, Arrhidaeus, and his son Alexander IV, were proclaimed joint kings with Perdiccus, as regent. The power struggle continued for years. At one point Olympias was able to seize power ostensibly to care for her grandson, Alexander IV. True to form she had Arrhidaeus killed straight off. The old tigress was protecting her grandson and her position. Driven out of Pella, Olympias took refuge in the fortress of Pydna. When the fortress fell Kassandros ordered Olympias killed but the soldiers refused to kill the mother of Alexander; in the end, the families of her many victims stoned her to death with the approval of the son of her long time enemy Antipater, Kassandros.

Olympias was a woman, in a time when many women were confined to the upper rooms of a house and rarely allowed to leave it. She would not conform. She was a Princess and a Queen. She was the niece of a King and the sister of a King. She was the mother of a King and a Queen. She was the grandmother of a King and the mother of a God. How is such a person to be judged? She came to the rough and ready frontier town of Pella when she was about 17, a barbarian girl with a thin veneer of civilization. If she is judged by the gentler standards of of the civilization of the Greek women to the south she seems monstrous. She was not a Greek woman of The South. She was born and raised among the wild tribes of The Northwest. Considering who and what she was, none of her actions seem remarkable. She was, in short, who she was and should be judged by her Gods, not ours.

Alexander the Great - Jerusalem

Article from Livius.

Most scholars agree that the following story, told by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his Jewish antiquities 11.317-345, is not true. One argument is that Alexander is shown a book that was not yet written. Another argument is that the story is a bit too good to be true: the Samarians, the eternal rivals of the Jews, blacken the Jews and get permission to build a temple of their own, Alexander visits Jerusalem, understands that he owes everything to the God of the Jews, allows them the privilege to live according to their ancestral customs and behaves rather unkind towards the Samarians. If a Jew in the second century BCE were to invent a story, he would write something along these lines.

Alexander Kneeling before Jaddus at the Gates of Jerusalem, possibly woven at the workshop of Jaques Tseraerts (died before 1613), Flanders, Brussels

On closer inspection, however, we may notice some odd details. In the first place, the Samaritans are allowed to keep their temple: not exactly something a Jew would invent, and in fact a plausible punishment for the Jewish refusal to send soldiers. In the second place, in fact, Alexander gives the Jews no privileges at all: everything he grants the Jews, had already been granted to them by the Persian kings. This was Alexander's usual policy.

In the third place, the idea that Alexander had had a vision in which the God of the Jews played an important role is just too incredible to be invented: everyone knew that Alexander claimed to be the son of the Egyptian god Ammon. Nobody would invent a special link to the Jewish God. The easiest explanation is that Alexander did indeed sacrifice to the God of the Jews.

Another aspect that deserves to be mentioned is Alexander's demand for auxiliaries and the presents the Jews formerly had sent to the Persian government. This matches the demand made by Alexander to Darius that he would address him as the master of the Persian possessions.

(The following translation was made by William Whiston.)

Ancient-Warfare.com, the online home of Ancient Warfare magazine

So when Alexander besieged Tyre, he sent an epistle to the Jewish high-priest, to send him some auxiliaries, and to supply his army with provisions [1]; and that what presents he formerly sent to Darius, he would now send to him, and choose the friendship of the Macedonians, and that he should never repent of so doing. But the high-priest answered the messengers, that he had given his oath to Darius not to bear arms against him; and he said that he would not transgress this while Darius was in the land of the living. Upon hearing this answer, Alexander was very angry; and though he determined not to leave Tyre, which was just ready to be taken, yet as soon as he had taken it, he threatened that he would make an expedition against the Jewish high-priest, and through him teach all men to whom they must keep their oaths. So when he had, with a good deal of pains during the siege, taken Tyre, and had settled its affairs, he came to the city of Gaza, and besieged both the city and him that was governor of the garrison, whose name was Babemeses.[2]

The Emperor Alexander Paying Tribute to the Grand Priest Jaddus, Jacopo Amigoni (c. 1675-1752), Issoudun, Musée de l’Hospice Saint-Roch.

But [the Samarian leader] Sanballat thought he had now gotten a proper opportunity to make his attempt, so he renounced Darius, and taking with him seven thousand of his own subjects, he came to Alexander; and finding him beginning the siege of Tyre, he said to him, that he delivered up to him these men, who came out of places under his dominion, and did gladly accept of him for his lord instead of Darius. So when Alexander had received him kindly, Sanballat took courage, and spoke to him about his present affair. He told him that he had a son-in-law, Manasseh, who was brother to the high-priest Jaddus; and that there were many others of his own nation, now with him, that were desirous to have a temple in the places subject to him; that it would be for the king's advantage to have the strength of the Jews divided into two parts, lest when the nation is of one mind, and united, upon any attempt for innovation, it prove troublesome to kings, as it had formerly proved to the kings of Assyria. Whereupon Alexander gave Sanballat leave so to do, who used the utmost diligence, and built the temple, and made Manasseh the priest, and deemed it a great reward that his daughter's children should have that dignity; but when the seven months of the siege of Tyre were over, and the two months of the siege of Gaza, Sanballat died.

Alexander der Grosse vor den toren von Jerusalem, Platzer Johann Georg, 1704-1761, Hampel, München

Now Alexander, when he had taken Gaza, made haste to go up to Jerusalem; and Jaddus the high-priest, when he heard that, was in an agony, and under terror, as not knowing how he should meet the Macedonians, since the king was displeased at his foregoing disobedience. He therefore ordained that the people should make supplications, and should join with him in offering sacrifice to God, whom he besought to protect that nation, and to deliver them from the perils that were coming upon them; whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates; that the rest should appear in white garments, but that he and the priests should meet the king in the habits proper to their order, without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced, and declared to all the warning he had received from God. According to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming of the king.

Alexander the Great in the Temple of Jerusalem, Sebastiano Conca (1680-1764), Spain, Madrid, Museo del Prado

And when Jaddus understood that Alexander was not far from the city, he went out in procession, with the priests and the multitude of the citizens. The procession was venerable, and the manner of it different from that of other nations. It reached to a place called Sapha, which name, translated into Greek, signifies a prospect, for you have thence a prospect both of Jerusalem and of the temple. And when the Phoenicians and the Samarians that followed him thought they should have liberty to plunder the city, and torment the high-priest to death, which the king's displeasure fairly promised them, the very reverse of it happened; for Alexander, when he saw the multitude at a distance, in white garments, while the priests stood clothed with fine linen, and the high-priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his head, having the golden plate whereon the name of God was engraved, he approached by himself, and adored that name, and first saluted the high-priest.

The Jews also did all together, with one voice, salute Alexander, and encompass him about; whereupon the kings of Syria and the rest were surprised at what Alexander had done, and supposed him disordered in his mind. However, Parmenion alone went up to him, and asked him how it came to pass that, when all others adored him, he should adore the high-priest of the Jews? To whom he replied, 'I did not adore him, but that God who has honored him with his highpriesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dion in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is that, having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind.'

Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest of Jerusalem, Pietro da Cortona, 1596-1669, Italy

And when he had said this to Parmenion, and had given the high-priest his right hand, the priests ran along by him, and he came into the city. And when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high-priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high-priest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. [3] And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present.

But the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him; whereupon the high-priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year.[4] He granted all they desired. And when they asked him that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired. And when he said to the multitude, that if any of them would enlist themselves in his army, on this condition, that they should continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him in his wars.

Alexander de Grote knielt voor de hogepriester Jaddus, Luyken, Jan (1649-1712), Boekillustratoren Jan en Casper Luyken, Amsterdam Museum

So when Alexander had thus settled matters at Jerusalem, he led his army into the neighboring cities; and when all the inhabitants to whom he came received him with great kindness, the Samaritans, who had then Shechem for their metropolis -a city situate at Mount Gerizzim, and inhabited by apostates of the Jewish nation- seeing that Alexander had so greatly honored the Jews, determined to profess themselves Jews [...]. Accordingly, they made their address to the king with splendor, and showed great alacrity in meeting him at a little distance from Jerusalem. And when Alexander had commended them, the Shechemites approached to him, taking with them the troops that Sanballat had sent him, and they desired that he would come to their city, and do honor to their temple also; to whom he promised, that when he returned he would come to them. And when they petitioned that he would remit the tribute of the seventh year to them, because they did but sow thereon, he asked who they were that made such a petition; and when they said that they were Hebrews, but had the name of Sidonians, living at Shechem, he asked them again whether they were Jews; and when they said they were not Jews, 'It was to the Jews,' said he, 'that I granted that privilege; however, when I return, and am thoroughly informed by you of this matter, I will do what I shall think proper.'

And in this manner he took leave of the Shechemites; but ordered that the troops of Sanballat should follow him into Egypt, because there he designed to give them lands, which he did a little after in Thesis, when he ordered them to guard that country.

NOTES

1 - This detail is almost certainly authentic. Alexander besieged Tyre in the first half of 332 and desperately needed food supplies.
2 - Other sources call him Batis.
3 - The text Flavius Josephus has in mind may be Daniel 7:6; 8:3-8, 20--22; 11:3. Unfortunately, modern research has shown convincingly that the Book of Daniel was written in about 165 BCE.
4 - These conditions already existed in the Achaemenid empire.

MORE DEPICTIONS

"Alexander before the high priest Iaddo", tapestry belonged to Alexander Farnese, de Duke of Parma, Oudenaarde City Museum

Alexander der Große Jerusalem Kupferstich Merian - 1640

Quran and Islam on Alexander the Great

The Islamic religious and literature sources are another undeniable testimony of the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians.

Dhul-Qarnayn (English: The two-horned) features prominently in the Quran, the sacred scripture of Muslims. The story of Dhul-Qarnayn appears in sixteen verses of the Quran, specifically verses 18:83-98 of Surah Al-Kahf ("The Cave").

The story of Dhul-Qarnayn (in English "The Two-Horned One"), mentioned in the Quran, is in fact a reference to Alexander the Great.

Dhul-Qarnayn is regarded by some Muslims as a prophet, while other say that he was "a friend of God". The Quran indicates that the people (at least rabbis) during Muhammad's time, already knew tales of a person of great power by the name of Dhul-Qarnayn. There have been many different cultural depictions of Alexander the Great since antiquity, including references in the Bible (Daniel, book of Maccabees).

Historically, Muslim scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great. The earliest identification between Alexander and Dhul-Qarnayn was made by the Muslim hagiographer Ibn Hisham in the Sira literature. This identification with Alexander is also endorsed by Islamic tafsir (exegesis) literature dating from the fifteenth century.

The Quran describes the story about Dhul-Qarnayn building a great gate near the "rising place of the Sun" between two mountains, in order to enclose the nations of Gog and Magog who "do great mischief in the earth".

In the Quran, Dhul-Qarnayn encloses the Gog and Magog horde behind a mighty gate between two mountains, preventing the Gog and Magog from invading the Earth. In Islamic eschatology, on the Day of Judgement Gog and Magog will destroy this gate, allowing them to ravage the Earth. [Quran 18:98 and 21: 96-97]

12th century map by the Muslim scholar Al-Idrisi (south-up). "Yajooj" and "Majooj" appear in Arabic script on the bottom-left edge of the Eurasian landmass, enclosed within dark mountains, at a location corresponding roughly to Mongolia. This is reference to the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an.

Alexander the Great was an immensely popular figure in the classical and post-classical cultures of the Mediterranean and Middle East. Almost immediately after his death a body of legend began to accumulate about his exploits and life which, over the centuries, became increasingly fantastic as well as allegorical.

Collectively this tradition is called the "Alexander Romance". The Alexander romance was composed in Greek at Alexandria, probably in the 3rd century A.D. The Christianized peoples of the Near East, inheritors of both the Hellenic as well as Judaic strands of the Alexander Romance, further theologized Alexander until in some stories he was depicted as a saint.

Elements of Alexander romance were combined with certain Biblical legends. For example, Syriac versions combined the Gates of Alexander legend with the legend of Gog and Magog from the Book of Revelation.

Christian legends speak of the Caspian Gates (Gates of Alexander), also known as Alexander's wall, built by Alexander the Great in the Caucasus mountains. Several variations of the legend can be found.

In the story, Alexander the Great built a gate of iron between two mountains, at the end of the Earth, to prevent the armies of Gog and Magog from ravaging the plains. In the Syriac version of the Christian legends, Alexander the Great encloses the Gog and Magog horde behind a mighty gate between two mountains, preventing the Gog and Magog from invading the Earth.

In addition, it is written in the Christian legend that in the end of times, God will cause the Gate of Gog and Magog to be destroyed, allowing the Gog and Magog horde to ravage the Earth.

A Persian painting from the 16th century illustrating the building of the wall

The earliest mention of Dhul-Qarnayn, outside the Quran, is found in the works of the earliest Muslim historian and hagiographer, Ibn Ishaq, which form the main corpus of the Sira literature.

Ibn Ishaq's original work is lost, but it has been almost completely incorporated in Ibn Hisham, another early Muslim historian. Ibn Hisham collected Ibn Ishaq's Sira and added his notes to it.

In regards to Dhul-Qarnayn, Ibn Hisham noted:

"Dhu al-Qarnayn is Alexander the Greek, the king of Persia and Greece, or the king of the east and the west, for because of this he was called Dhul-Qarnayn [meaning, 'the two-horned one']..."

Aristotelian Muslim philosophers, such as al-Farabi, Avicenna, and al-Kindi enthusiastically embraced the concept of Dhul-Qarnayn being an ancient Greek king. They stylized Dhul-Qarnayn as a Greek philosopher king.

Author: SPARTANsenator7

The page of the Koran which refers to Alexander the Great (Zul Carnein). From Koranion, a Greek translation edited by Marianna I. Latsis.

Surah 18: Al-Kahf (The Cave)
Ayats 83-90

Verse 83: They ask thee concerning Dhu al Qarnayn. Say "I will rehearse to you something of his story."

Verse 84: Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and the means to all ends.

Verse 85: One (such) way he followed,

Verse 86: Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: near it he found a People: We said: "O Dhu al Qarnayn! (thou hast authority) either to punish them, or to treat them with, kindness."

Verse 87: He said: "Whoever doth wrong, him shall we punish; then shall he be sent back to his Lord; and He will punish him with a punishment unheard-of (before).

Verse 88: "But whoever believes, and works righteousness he shall have a goodly reward, and easy will be his task as we order it by our command."

Verse 89: Then followed he (another) way.

Verse 90: Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.

(Translation by Yusuf Ali)