Insignias of King Constantine I of Greece

A magnificent star-sapphire set in the hilt of the richly chased and ornamented sword given by the Macedonian Greeks of USA to King Constantine of Greece, on Easter Day, 1913, as a talisman designed to assure good fortune and long life to the sovereign, as well as prosperity to the state over which he rules. Another talismanic embellishment of the sword was an inlaid didrachm of Alexander the Great; it is a well-known fact and one frequently recorded by ancient and medieval writers, that the coins of this monarch were often treasured up as amulets or talismans.

Author: magicmountaion

If Alexander the Great had lived on 69

What might be different, renowned British historian Arnold Toynbee wondered, if Alexander the Great had lived to be 69 years old? He wrote an essay exploring the possible outcomes.

323 B.C.
Alexander is cured from his almost-deadly illness. He becomes a lot calmer and lets his loyal officers Eumenes, Perdikkas and Ptolemaios rule the empire during his the next few years when he is campaigning. 

322 B.C. 
Alexander sails around the Arabian peninsula. In Suez, he orders the renewal of the channel. Phoenicians are settled at the Persian Gulf, along with other neighbouring peoples as Samaritans, Moabites and and Hebrews. They use the opportunity and become an open-minded people. There is no religious strife and therefore no religious movements which spring off a humiliated Judaism. Thus: No Christianity (according to Toynbee). Alexander's new capital becomes Alexandria in Egypt. 

321 B.C. 
He sails to Macedonia and secures the frontiers in Thracia and Anatolia. 

320/319 B.C. 
Conquered of Sicily and Carthage. Both are reorganized in the same manner as the Corinthian league. In Gibraltar, he founds the city of Alexandreia Eschata Herakleia. Pytheas of Massilia receives order to sail around Africa. 

318 B.C. 
Greek-Roman Pact against Samnites.

317 B.C. 
Victory over Samnium. Southern Italy ("Magna Graecia") is reorganized as the league of Naples. Rome may conquer whole Italy and - if possible - Gaul. 

317-314 B.C. 
With the Mediterrean Sea in his hands, Alexander forms a new army with mercenaries and moves to India. He conquers the kingdom of Magadha and Seleukos is installed as ruler. At the Ganges river, Alexander mets a Phoenician fleet that discovered the way to India by sea. From now on, Buddhist missionaries move deep into the empire. In Hellas, Zenon and Epicurus write essays on Buddhistic philosophy. World state and world religion are linked together from now on. 

312/311 B.C. 
Alexander moves to the Jaxartes river. Having heard of Chinese wealth, he joins an uprising and conquers China. Antigonos is made king of China. 

308 B.C. 
Nearchus discovers the sea passage from India to China. In the following centuries, Chinese population moves down the islands in the south, making Australia a Chinese continent. 

287 B.C. 
Alexander dies. 

Alexander's successor Alexander IV. civilizes his empire, reorganizes administration, builds up infrastructure etc. In Alexandria, he builds a university ("Museion" for philosophers, "Hephaisteion" for Technicians). Heron discovers the steam power, Aristarchus the heliocentric idea. Erastothenes finds that Earth is kind of a ball. 

Circa 220 B.C. 
A young Carthaginian named Hannibal has read the stories of Atlantis and hopes to find it across the ocean. He finds the new continent of Antipodia.

The rest of the world slowly joins the peaceful and benevolent empire. 

Circa 1930 A.D. 
A historian named Arnoldus Toynbeenus sits in Alexandria and imagines a world where Alexander died. He shudders by the mere thought of it and praises Alexander LXXXVI.

If Philip and Ochus had lived on

by Arnold Toynbee, 1969

IF PHILIP AND OCHUS HAD LIVED ON

When the foiled assassin, Pausanias, was questioned under torture, he declared that he had been acting as the agent of the ex-queen Olympias and of her son the reinstated heir apparent, Prince Alexander… We shall never know whether he (Alexander) was guilty or whether, though innocent, he feared that Attalus’ influence over Philip might move Philip to take Alexander’s guilt for granted without proof. Prince Alexander forestalled further investigation by fleeing across the border into Epirus – and his uncle and namesake the king of Epirus fled with him, abandoning his Macedonian bride. Now that King Alexander’s sister Olympias was under accusation of having plotted to have her ex-husband Philip assassinated, the king drew the same conclusion as the prince his nephew. He, too, concluded that Macedon had become too hot to hold him. The two refugees were both in a desperate mood, and Olympias knew how to work upon their feelings. Under Olympias’ potent influence, the uncle and nephew hastily decided that their only practicable means of self-defence lay in taking the offensive at once. They decided to invade Macedon forthwith, with intent either to expel Philip or to kill him and, in either case, to enthrone Prince Alexander in his stead. King Alexander called up the Epirot levy. Prince Alexander went off to enlist the Illyrians with whom he had established contact in the preceding year. 

In thus challenging Philip’s overwhelmingly superior strength, the two Alexanders were counting on two supposed assets, neither of which materialised in the tragic event. 

In the first place they hoped that the people of the Macedonian highland cantons, Parauaea, Tymphaea, Orestis, Lyncestis, and Elemiotis, which lay between Lower Macedon and Epirus, would rise to join forces with them in order to recover their lost autonomy. It was true that Philip had deprived them of an autonomy that had been their traditional prerogative, and that his reduction of them to the status of territories under the direct administration of the Macedonian crown had been resented – by the Orestae in particular. It was also true that, in some ways, the Parauaeans and Tymphaeans, at any rate, had less affinity with Macedon than they had with Epirus. However, the two Alexanders’ hope of enlisting the Macedonian highlanders on their side was not fulfilled. By the time the Alexanders crossed the border, the highlanders had responded to Philip’s mobilisation order. Either prudence or loyalty (who knows which?) had already brought them into the ranks of the Alexanders’ opponents. 

The Alexanders’ second hope had lain in the supposed popularity of Prince Alexander himself in Macedon. It was true that, when he had left the country in the preceding year, there had been widespread concern, and it was also true that there had been no less widespread relief when he had subsequently returned and been reconciled with his father officially. Undoubtedly the prince’s fighting qualities were highly esteemed by his fellow countrymen. Macedonians admired nothing so much as courage carried to the point of foolhardiness and then justified by strength and skill in the use of arms; and Prince Alexander had given a superb exhibition of these characteristic Macedonian military virtues in the cavalry engagement at Chaeronea. However, Prince Alexander’s popularity in Macedon was subject to some serious reservations, as the event was to show. For one thing, this son of an Epirot queen was half a foreigner, and no pure-blooded Macedonian liked that. In the second place, he had become half-alienated from the rustic Macedonian and Epirot Greek way of life by the sophisticated Hellenic education that his father had perversely insisted on giving him. Philip had hired a philosopher to be Prince Alexander’s tutor, and this philosopher was a citizen of one of those colonial south-Greek city-states that had been planted along the Aegean coast of Thrace before the north-Greek Kingdom of Macedon had expanded into the adjoining hinterland. These intrusive south-Greek settlements were an eyesore to Macedonian imperialists. If Alexander’s tutor Aristotle’s home town had been, not Stagirus, but some city-state to the south of Tempe, the Macedonians might perhaps have disliked Aristotle rather less; but they would have disliked him in any case for his signal success in infecting his pupil the heir apparent with his own zeal for the city-state kind of Greek culture. These two blots (as they were, in Macedonian eyes on Alexander’s scutcheon were not of Prince Alexander’s own making, but the prince had now committed an offence that was both deliberate and grave. Macedonian public opinion might have forgiven him for rebelling against his sire and sovereign. Cut-throat strife within the bosom of the Argead dynasty was a familiar feature of Macedonian public life. But the Macedonian prince’s fellow countrymen could not forgive him for raising a band of Illyrian mercenaries and leading them in an invasion of Macedon. The Illyrians were barbarians and they were Macedon’s hereditary national enemy. For a Macedonian to make common cause with Illyrians was high treason, and, in the heir apparent to the Macedonian throne, this crime was particularly heinous. It was too heinous to be redeemed by Prince Alexander’s prowess as a fighting man. 

Thus the war that the two Alexanders had started had been lost by them in advance. The hostilities were brief, and the single battle in which the fighting began and ended was short, though sharp. It was fought in Elemiotis, between the Pindus Range and the Haliakmon River. The invaders found the entire man-power of Macedon arrayed against them. While Prince Alexander had been raising his Illyrians, Attalus had been ferrying his expeditionary force back from Asia to Macedon by sea. He had lost no time in commandeering the transports; his own life hung on the issue of the impending conflict on European soil. When both Attalus’ troops and the highland levies had joined the Lower Macedonian levies, Philip had in hand an army that was a decisively superior to the Alexanders’ army in numbers as it was in discipline, equipment, and tactics. Prince Alexander fought as furiously in elemiotis in 336 BC as he had fought in Boeotia two years back. But what could a single paladin do? The Illyrian and Epirot horsemen were both few and poor in quality. Furiously though the prince fought, he was taken prisoner. 

This operation cost valuable Macedonian lives, but no Macedonian subject was willing to assume the responsibility for taking the life of King Philip’s son and heir. When the prince was brought, bound, into his father’s presence, Philip immediately killed him with his own hand. Philip dared not leave his traitor son alive, and no other Macedonian except the traitor’s sovereign and father dared to serve as executioner.

Happy New Year - 2013

Administrator of a Macedonia Documents blog, wishes you a Happy New Year (2013).

Best regards,

M.P.

Alexander the Great Marathon

The Alexander The Great Marathon (Greek: Μαραθώνιος Μέγας Αλέξανδρος) is an annual marathon race which is held between Pella and Thessaloniki, Greece, in Mid-April.

First held in 2006, the race begins at the birthplace of Alexander the Great and finishes in what was the last capital of Ancient Macedonia, Thessaloniki. It received IAAF Bronze Label Road Race status in 2010, and it is an AIMS-certified race. In addition to the marathon race, the day's events include popular fun runs over five and ten kilometres.

Nazi plan about IMRO and Macedonia

WWII Nuremberg Interrogation Records

j. The IMRO

NEUBACHER's knowledge of the IMRO is limited, since Bulgaria was generally outside his sphere activities.

NEUBACHER describes IMRO, the Macedonian revolutionary organization, as anti-democratic, anti-liberal, and anti-Masonic. Its official aim was a Greater Macedonia, to be attained through terroristic means and at the expense of Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia. In the hands of the IMRO, terror eventually became an end in itself.

The IMRO policy of "blood revenge" (Blutrache) brought on a sanguinary split into two groups, one led by PROTOGEROFF, and other by MIHAILOFF. The split was climaxed by the much-publicized Burgtheater murder in WIEN.

MIHAILOFF was a pet of KALTENBRUNNER and therefore one of Amt VI, RSHA. The IMRO, according to NEUBACHER, represented the only instance where KALTENBRUNNER acted against NEUBACHER's political advice. KALTENBRUNNER considered MIHAILOFF's group the only one capable of withstanding the Bulgarian communists.

MIHAILOFF had lived abroad for many years, for a time as the guest of PAVELIC in ZAGREB. What link existed between the two terrorist leaders is not known to NEUBACHER. NEUBACHER avoided personal contact with MIHAILOFF but knows that KALTENBRUNNER met him frequently and at the end of 1943 arranged a secret meeting between HIMMLER and MIHAILOFF.

KALTENBRUNNER intended to use the IMRO against communists in Northern Greece (Aktion Heide). The original plan called for the use of about 6,000 men, but this number was cut to 2,000 at NEUBACHER's insistence. NEUBACHER was particularly opposed to employing the IMRO in his sphere, Greece. In NEUBACHER's opinion, the Greeks and Bulgarians would have come to terms had it not been for the IMRO. But NEUBACHER's hands were tied because of KALTENBRUNNER's and HIMMLER backing of the IMRO and RIBBENTROP's support of the plan for Macedonian state linked with Bulgaria.

The only hint given RIBBENTROP of the nature of RSHA policy toward the IMRO was a Bulgarian Government note complaining about SD support of the IMRO.

RIBBENTROP's avid belief in a Macedonian state led to an order in Autumn 1944, on the eve of the German retreat, for the creation of an independent Macedonia. In compliance, NEUBACHER took steps to organize in SKOPLJE a self-governing Macedonian committee, whose actual mission was to be limited to security measures against communist partisans. MIHAILOFF's unpopularity was apparent, and it was impossible to find anyone willing to represent him on the new committee.

The activities of IMRO ceased as soon as the Germans left Bulgaria, despite the extensive measures taken by RIBBENTROP and KALTENBRUNNER in anticipation of the German withdrawal.

Conclusion: All Nazi proponents for Independent "Macedonia" (Joachim von Ribbentrop, Ernst Kaltenbrunner etc.) were killed in Nuremberg 1946, as biggest malefactors of humanity. If propagandist of FYROM, attempt to use this document as prove that Independent "Macedonia" was reality in the Balkan during WW II, they will go wrong badly, because this state supposed to be a linked with Bulgaria and its leadership to be in Bulgarian hands (Ivan Mihailoff's hands).

People from Skopje (present-day FYROM) posing together with their allies Nazi German and Italian allies, with the irredentist map of Greater "Macedonia" behind them.

The idea for Greater "Macedonia" still alive today, and it is supported by some (not all) people from FYROM:

Football fans from FYROM. Banner - "I swear, it will be united 10.08.2013 (100 years after treaty of Bucurest)"

Rally of VMRO-DPMNE (29.05.2011), ruling political party of FYROM. Big banner with Greater (United) Macedonia map.
Anti-Greek rally in Skopje 2008. It is the same banner from previous image.
Anti-Greek rally of Slavomacedonians in Australia, Melbourne 2008.
Primary school in Ohrid (FYROM)

Nuremberg Chronicle on Macedonia, 1493

The Nuremberg Chronicle is an illustrated Biblical paraphrase and world history that follows the story of human history related in the Bible; it includes the histories of a number of important Western cities. Written in Latin by Hartmann Schedel, with a version in German translation by Georg Alt, it appeared in 1493. It is one of the best-documented early printed books—an incunabulum —and one of the first to successfully integrate illustrations and text. Latin scholars refer to it as Liber Chronicarum (Book of Chronicles) as this phrase appears in the index introduction of the Latin edition. English speakers have long referred to it as the Nuremberg Chronicle after the city in which it was published. German speakers refer to it as Die Schedelsche Weltchronik (Schedel's World History) in honour of its author. The illustrations in many copies were hand-coloured after printing.

Macedonian city depicted by Hartmann Schedel in 15 century

The author Hartmann Schedel, stated about Macedonia:
"... Greece has on the east, Dalmatia, Epirus, Hellas, Thessaly, Macedonia, Achaoa, and Illyria. And all Greece and Dalmatia was named after Delim, the largest city of these provinces..."

Conclusion: The author divides the Balkan in antiquity on five provinces: Moesia, Pannonia, Rhaetia, Thrace and Greece. The province of Greece, he divides on seven regions: Dalmatia, Epirus, Hellas, Thessaly, Macedonia, Achaea and Illyria.

"... Macedonia, formerly called Emathia, is near Media which is to the north. It was the country of Alexander the Great’s father. It is rich in veins of gold and silver. In it is Mt. Olympus, which is so high that on its peak are found neither air nor clouds..."

Conclusion: Author used the oldest name of Macedonia, Emathia, which in fact is Greek and comes from the Greek mythology. Emathos was the son of Macedon (son of Zeus and Thyia) and brother of Pierus.
"... He made Persepolis the capital of the kingdom. This city was later burned by the Greeks, who conquered the country..."

Conclusion: The ancient city of Persepolis was burned by the Alexander's army, who according to author were Greeks.
"... This Aemilius with the Romans waged a most just war against the Tarentines; and so with Pyrrhus, king of the Greeks..."

Conclusion: According to author of this chronicle, Pyrrhus of Epirus, general and King of Epirus and Macedonia, and the last of Alexander's Diadochi, was the Greek ruler. He was second cousin of Alexander the Great, via Alexander's mother (Olympias) side.
"... But the benign forethought of human nature, always inclined to the best, thought of consolidating everything into a single principality, without which a general peace was not possible. Thus originated the Assyrian kingdom. In the same manner the Greek state expanded from Europe to Asia and Lybia, under the power and good fortune of Alexander the Great; and Carthage did likewise..."

Conclusion: According to author Alexander's kingdom who expanded from Europe to Asia and Lybia, was the Greek kingdom.
"Macedonia, the country that once ruled the world, borders on Thrace from the west and south, and extends from the Aegean Sea to the Adriatic. To the south, at its back, are Thessaly and Magnesia; and to the north Paeonia and Paphiagonia. These regions were later added to Macedonia. Epirus and Illyricum also border on Macedonia, one on the south, the other on the north. On the shores of the Adriatic lies the ancient city of Dyrrachium of the Cheronese in which it is located, and from whence it derived its name. It was formerly called Epidamnus, and was first built by those of Corcyra. Not far below was the city of Apollonia, established under good laws, and memorable for the fact that the emperor Augustus studied Greek there. On the other shore is Thessalonica, once a mighty city, celebrated through the epistles of St. Paul, and by the devastations and irreconcilable wrath of Theodosius the Great; for, although at times he was a most kind emperor, he was so enraged by the slaying of the judges in the city that he ordered all the inhabitants put to death; and thus about 11,000 men perished. St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, would not permit such an inhuman deed to pass unpunished; and he forbade the emperor’s entry into the churches, and compelled him to do penance. From henceforth a law was enforced that a sentence of death should not be carried out for thirty days. Pliny states that this was a free city. Strabo says that Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, built it. Both ascribe this city to Macedonia. Andronicus, son of Emanuel, the Constantinopolitan emperor, acquired this city as a portion of his inheritance, but later, through hatred of his brother John, who succeeded his father as emperor, he surrendered it to the Venetians, from whom it was taken by the Turkish sultan Amurate. This sultan also brought under his sway the remaining Macedonian districts as far as the Paeonian mountains, a region now called Albania. O what wonderful changes have taken place in worldly affairs, and how transitory man's authority has been! At one time this Macedonian region, while under the two kings, Philip and Alexander, extended into Asia, Armenia, Iberia, Albania, Cappodocia, Syria, Egypt, and as far as Mount Taurus and the Caucasus, and over the Bactrians, Medes and Persians. But in our time it is unfortunately subject to the vile Turks, to whom it has become tributary and subservient."

Conclusion: It's interesting the fact that Emperor Augustus learned to spoke Greek in Roman province of Macedonia. It is good proof, what was the official language spoken by the inhabitants of this province.
"Albania at one time belonged to and was part of Macedonia, wherein the two aforesaid cities of Dyrrachium and Apollonia were situated. The language of this people is understood neither by the Greeks nor the Wends. We believe that the people at one time came from the Albania near Chalcide, in Asiatic Scythia, when the barbarian nations overran Greece and Italy..."

Conclusion: Author support the Caucasian theory of modern Albanians origin. This theory is not proven.

Images from the chronicle:

1. Philip of Macedon, Olympias and Nectabanus.
2. Alexander the Great
3. Cleopatra
4. Philip of Macedon

Author: (M. P.)
Translations in English taken from University of Wisconsin-Madison.

ATG - Sui generis (Revisited)

ALEXANDER THE GREAT - SUI GENERIS by Nikolas Martis (REVISITED)
by John C. Mavrovitis [1]

The Hellenic Communication Service (HCS) Website published an article entitled Alexander the Great — Sui Generis (hereinafter referred to as Sui Generis). It was originally written in 1983, in Greek, by Nicholas Martis, and translated for publication on the website by Professor Nina Gatzoulis. [2] A virtually identical text can be found at the Pan-Macedonian Association’s Website. [3] Sui Generis consists mostly of excerpts from Martis’ book, The Falsification of Macedonian History [4] (hereinafter referred to as The Falsification).

This criticism of Martis’ work does not arise from a desire to participate in current controversies surrounding the origin of ancient Macedonia’s people and kings, or whether Macedonians were Greek or not, or what the geographic limits of the Macedonian state were. Answers to these questions are contested by reputable academicians whose research and judgments are presented in scholarly journals and books, and critically evaluated by their peers. Neither is this an attack on, or defense of Alexander the Great. Nor is it to take a side on the current argument about the use of the name, Macedonia. It is enough that contemporary politicians on either side of the arguments exploit conflicting historical claims to distract their constituents from far more urgent matters.

The purpose of this article is to contest Martis’ questionable scholarship and propagandistic rhetoric.

The first quotation used in Sui Generis is taken from text close to the end of Arrian’s history, and is part of a long peroration. A better translation, by Aubrey De Sélincourt, is as follows: “… never in all the world was there another like him [Alexander], and therefore I cannot but feel that some power more than human was concerned in his birth; …” [5]

Arrian, a highly educated Greek from Bythnia, lived in the first and second centuries A.D. and wrote one of the early histories of Alexander. His served as military officer and government administrator; was a historian; and occupied the pagan priesthood of Demeter and Kore in his native city. [6] A warrior and member of the Roman elite, he was sympathetic to Alexander’s military success.

A.B. Bosworth analyzes the peroration in his From Arrian to Alexander, [7] summing up his evaluation as follows: “Arrian’s work ends in a carefully contrived panegyric, extended and fulsome (vii. 28. 1-30. 3).” [8] The superlatives Arrian used to describe Alexander’s virtues are bountiful, and he offered extended apologies to excuse the hero’s less desirable qualities.

One can, incidentally, make anything one wants of Alexander by choosing supporting quotations from one or another historian, biographer, scholar, and even modern day historical novelist. Perhaps that is why the phrases “The Search for Alexander” and “In Search of Alexander” are so often used. Ulrich Wilcken makes this comment:

“Ever since he emerged from a somewhat backward Macedonian nation to claim much of Greece and Asia as his own, Alexander the Great has exercised a secure hold on the human imagination. The nature of this attraction is a complex phenomenon. It is enough to say that there are many Alexanders, perhaps as many as there are those who profess a serious interest in him.” [9]

J.B. Bury and Russell Meiggs state:

“Alexander, like Caesar and Napoleon, invites partisanship. In modern times he has become a philosopher king, a military adventurer; a dedicated Hellenist more Hellenic than the Hellenes; a half-civilized Macedonian; a generous idealist; a ruthless tyrant.” [10]

The next quotation in Sui Generis is from De Alexandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute, one of the orations in Plutarch’s Moralia. [11] Martis uses this wildly exuberant quotation as evidence that Alexander excelled as a philosopher. Peter Green puts forward the position that many contemporary scholars hold about the De Fortuna. He terms it a “rhetorical treatise,” and explains, “… Plutarch wrote it when very young, as an exercise [emphasis added] devoted to proving the highly dubious proposition that Alexander, by his deeds, showed himself a true philosopher of action. By the time he came to compose the Life, Plutarch had discreetly abandoned this unprofitable paradox; …” [12]

A.B. Bosworth wrote: “… it is to be hoped that his [Plutarch’s] rhetorical extravaganza in the first treatise, On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander, will no longer be taken as the basic explanatory text for Alexander’s treatment of subject peoples.” [13]

Later in Sui Generis Martis employs another quotation from De Moralia. It contains what Alexander is alleged to have said to Diogenes about his intention to merge nations, civilize continents, and convey Hellenic justice and peace. It is a myth, nothing more. Peter Green’s assessment of De Moralia, quoted above, applies. [14]

Martis includes a reference in Sui Generis to President Clinton’s writing — without any citation; and an assertion “that the Romans were the first to name Alexander ‘Great’,” — without any citation; and the statement: “Chateaubriand wrote ‘If someone was compared to a god, that was Alexander’”— also without citation. To be taken seriously, an author is obligated to provide his reader with citations for both paraphrases of and direct quotations from source material. How else can the veracity, applicability, and import of material presented in support of an argument be reasonably judged?

The questions that follow (there could be more) are asked to make the general point that Martis’ references are inexplicit.

- What is the source for the Montesquieu quotation?
- What is the source for Pavlos Tzermias quotation from Voltaire? What is Tzermias himself using as a source for Voltaire?
- What is the basis for the assertion that: “Buddhists consider Alexander equal to God?” Buddhism is often described as a non-theistic religion. Are we to accept Alexander as God based on this assertion? What is the point?
- Martis writes: “All attest to the fact that Alexander’s ambition was to civilize and not to conquer.” Who is “all”?

Other arguments put forward by Martis deserve scrutiny. Take for example the paragraph about Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem. Little more need be said than that most scholars believe the story told by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his Jewish antiquities, is not true. To quote Green: “… the tradition that Alexander made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem is mere pious legend.” [15] Bury and Meiggs write: “Josephus … records a visit by Alexander to Jerusalem, but since there is no other mention of the visit in our surviving sources we can dismiss it as patriotic fiction.” [16]

Martis’ most egregious attempt to substitute mythology for historical fact is in what he attributes to Alexander as “Alexander’s speech at Opis in 324 BC, otherwise known as Alexander’s Oath …” He writes:

“The main points which he made in this speech are as follows:

• Now that the wars are over, I wish you to find happiness through peace.
• May all mortals live from now on in harmony, as one nation, for the sake of common prosperity.
• Consider the world as your country, with common laws, governed by men of merit, regardless of race.
• I do not distinguish between Greeks and barbarians, as do the narrow-minded.
• I am not interested in the country or race of origin of people.
• I only distinguish people according to their virtues.
• To me every virtuous foreigner is Greek and each non-virtuous Greek is worse than a barbarian.
• If you are ever faced with differences, do not resort to arms, but resolve them peacefully. If need be, I can act as your arbitrator.
• God should not be viewed as an authoritarian ruler, but as our common father.
• As for myself, I consider all persons, black or white, as equals.
• I wish you to be my partners and not just members of our commonwealth.
• As far as I am able, I shall see to it that all my promises come true.
• Regard this oath as a symbol of love. [17]

Martis offers no source for the Oath in Sui Generis, nor, incidentally, is one cited by the Pan-Macedonian Association Website, nor can a reference for it be found on any of the myriad websites that have copied and published the Oath as historical fact. The Oath is substantially the same on all websites, though some have introduced minor changes. (See below for the source Martis claims in The Falsification.)

In The Falsification, Martis describes a feast given by Alexander at Opis:

“There he invited in a supranational banquet military officers from all the units, and monarchs, maharajahs and notables from every tribe and in one banquet he joined East and West. Alexander mentions the name of his own god, Zeus, but he swears with the others to ‘the god father of all humanity’. He says he had a vision hat behind the local gods there was a great omnipotent god who moves the universe.” [18]

Arrian was the only one of the five secondary historians generally used as sources for Alexander studies (Diodorus Siculus, Flavius Arrianus, Justin, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius Rufus) who wrote about the feast at Opis. [19]

“To mark the restoration of harmony, Alexander offered sacrifice to the gods he was accustomed to honor, and gave a public banquet, which he himself attended, sitting among the Macedonians, all of whom were present. Next to them the Persians had their places, and next to the Persians distinguished foreigners of other nations; Alexander and his friends dipped their wine from the same bowl and poured the same libations, following the lead of the Greek seers and the Magi. The chief object of his prayers was that the Persians and Macedonians might rule together in harmony as an imperial power.” [20]

In his book, Martis writes the following about the Oath: “This oath is given by Zolakostas in his book Alexander the Great, Precursor of Christ (p. 235, in Greek text), who quoted the 3rd book of Pseudo-Callisthenes and the philosopher Eratosthenes.” [21]

The Oxford Classical Dictionary entry for Pseudo-Callisthenes is: “Pseudo-Callisthenes, the so-called Alexander-Romance, falsely ascribed to Callisthenes, survives in several versions, beginning in the 3rd cent. AD. It is popular fiction, a pseudohistorical narrative interspersed with an ‘epistolary novel’, bogus correspondence …” [22] Is this really the source for the Oath? It is not found in Penguin Classics Edition of The Greek Alexander Romance. [23]

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c.285-194 BC) was a mathematician, literary critic, chronologist, philosopher, poet, and geographer. His works are for the most part lost. [24] However Strabo, who lived in the first century B.C., wrote that Eratosthenes documented a source that told of Alexander’s predilection to welcome men of fair repute regardless of their origins. [25] That sentiment, whatever its source, is the substance of what Eratosthenes transmitted to us through Strabo of his knowledge of Alexander.

The Oath has no basis. It is not documented by ancient historians or biographers, and is not consistent with what happened at Opis: a mutiny on the part of Alexander’s Macedonians. Waldemar Heckel and J.C. Yardley provide an excellent summarization of the events at Opis.

“At Opis, on the Tigris River, Alexander prepared to dismiss a large number of his Macedonian veterans, bringing into the camp at the same time new recruits from the Iranian satrapies known as Epigoni. This, although it was not the only cause of discontent, triggered an angry reaction within the camp, one which Alexander suppressed by arresting and executing the most outspoken of the mutineers, as well as by offering words of conciliation. The appeal for ‘concord’ (homonoia) gave rise to the idea that Alexander was trying to promote a ‘Brotherhood of Mankind’, an idea which has been thoroughly discredited and is discussed today as a mere footnote to Alexander scholarship. Here we are confronted not with dreams of unity but with the reality of opposition within Alexander’s army.” [26] [Emphasis added.]

W. W. Tarn was one of the most highly regarded Alexander scholars of the early twentieth century. In his Alexander the Great [27] he portrays Alexander as a philosopher-warrior-king ennobled by the concept of the “Brotherhood of Man.” Tarn projected near Judaic-Christian values into Alexander’s motivations. More recent scholarship has all but demolished Tarn’s notions.

Following are quotations from the writings of five scholars about the events at Opis.

H.G.L. Hammond : “Alexander did not let his victory dwindle.” The victory is probably that over his mutinous Macedonians. For the most part Hammond’s prose is a paraphrase of Arrian. He adds very little analysis of the banquet at Opis, except for the comment: “Alexander ‘prayed especially for concord and for the sharing of rule between Macedonians and Persians’” [28]

A. B. Bosworth: “Alexander had acts of his own to expiate. He had deliberately played on the deep hostility between Macedonian and Persian and the deliberate promotion of Persians had inflicted a profound shock on the rank and file. To salve the wounds he held an enormous banquet of reconciliation, allegedly attended by more than nine thousand guests. … but on this occasion the preferences shown to the Macedonians was emphatic and significant. … The prayer indicated that both peoples figured in Alexander’s imperial projects and that they should coexist peacefully. There was no deeper hint that he envisaged a hybrid master race fused from both nationalities or that he saw humanity as a brotherhood under his universal rule.” [29] [Emphasis added.]

Ulrich Wilcken: “The actual prayer makes it most plain that the ideal which was before him was simply the fraternisation [sic] of Macedonians and Persians. There is no trace whatever of Alexander’s treating all mankind as one brotherhood.” [30] [Emphasis added]

Peter Green: “There is no hint here of that international love-feast, that celebration of the Brotherhood of Man [emphasis added] which at least one scholar61 has professed to find at the banquet at Opis. Persians were placed firmly below Macedonians in order of precedence, and other races, again, below them. When Alexander made his famous prayer at the feast for ‘harmony [homonoia] and fellowship [koinonia] of rule between Macedonians and Persians’ he meant precisely what he said, and no more — nor is there much doubt which race he meant to be senior partner.” [31]

Ernst Fredricksmeyer: “Within this monarchy … the Macedonians were to be the leading component, but all subjects would be equal with respect to Alexander as their absolute master.” [32]

This paper has focused on Sui Generis, as presented on the HCS Website, and on pages 56 through 71 of The Falsification (only fifteen pages of the two hundred and one page book). The content of these pages is sufficient to bring into serious question Martis’ other publication on the HCS Website, The Participation of Ancient Macedonians in the Olympiads and their Contribution to Greek Cultural Heritage, [33] and the balance of The Falsification.

I conclude that Nicholas Martis’ understandable passion for Macedonia, the region whose people he clearly served with distinction as a patriot, soldier, professional, and government official, led him into an unfortunate and wrongheaded set of arguments in his presentation of Alexander the Great. His assessment of Alexander is one-sided, exaggerated, and supported by quotations taken out of context from a wide variety of sources, most without citation. He advances a chauvinistic glorification of Alexander the Great with assertions that convey a romantic mythology of Alexander. The work is an encomium so inflated that it casts doubt on the credibility of the rest of the case Martis makes for a Hellenic Macedonia in The Falsification. [34]

In Sui Generis Martis writes: “Mankind today needs a positive projection of Alexander’s deeds …”

I suggest that mankind needs and deserves truth, as much of it as can be determined through thorough, systematic, dispassionate, and scientific inquiry.

Bibliography

- Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. [Harmondsworth, Eng., Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971.
- Borza, Eugene N. In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992.
- Bosworth, A. B. Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
- From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation. Oxford
- New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1988.
- Bosworth, A. B., and Elizabeth Baynham. Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
- Bury, J. B., and Russell Meiggs. A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great. 4th ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1975. Reprint, 1977.
- Green, Peter. Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography, Hellenistic Culture and Society; 11. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
- Hammond, N. G. L. The Genius of Alexander the Great. London: Duckworth, 1997.
- Heckel, Waldemar, and John Yardley. Alexander the Great: Historical Texts in Translation, Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004.
- Hornblower, Simon, and Antony Spawforth. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd ed.Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
- Martis, Nicolaos K. The Falsification of Macedonian History. Translated by John Philip Smith. 1985 ed. Athens: Nicolas Martis, 1983.
- Plutarch, Frank Cole Babbitt, W. C. Helmbold, Phillip De Lacy, Benedict Einarson, Edwin LeRoy Minar, F. H. Sandbach, Harold North Fowler, and Harold F. Cherniss. Plutarch's Moralia, The Loeb Classical Library; 197, 222, 245, 305-306, 337, 405, 424-425, 321, 426, 406, 427, 470, 428-429. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, 1927.
- Pseudo, Callisthenes, and Richard Stoneman. The Greek Alexander Romance, Penguin Classics. London, England; New York, NY, USA: Penguin Books, 1991.
- Strabo, Horace Leonard Jones, and John Robert Sitlington Sterrett. The Geography of Strabo. 8 vols, The Loeb Classical Library. London; New York: W. Heinemann; G.P. Putnam's sons, 1917.
- Tarn, W. W. Alexander the Great. Boston,: Beacon Press, 1956.
- Wilcken, Ulrich, and Eugene N. Borza. Alexander the Great. New York: Norton, 1967.

Notes

1 - I am neither an academic, nor in any way a specialist in classical or Macedonian history. The study of Classical, Hellenic, Roman, and Byzantine history, and of the history of Greece, Bulgaria, and the Balkans is my hobby in retirement. My father was a Greek Macedonian born not far from Argos Orestikon, in Mavrohorion, Kastoria, and I am proud of my heritage.
2 - Martis, Nicholas. Alexander the Great - Sui Generis. Retrieved February 21, 2005, from the Hellenic Communication Service Web site at: http://www.helleniccomserve.com/alexander.html
3 - See: http://www.panmacedonian.info/Alexander_Martis_letter.htm
4 - Nicolaos K. Martis, The Falsification of Macedonian History, trans. John Philip Smith, 1985 ed. (Athens: Nicolas Martis, 1983), 20-71.
5 - Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander ([Harmondsworth, Eng., Baltimore]: Penguin Books, 1971), 398. Translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt. Rev. with a new introduction and notes by J. R. Hamilton.
6 - A. B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation (Oxford New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1988), 17.
7 - Ibid., 135.
8 - Ibid., 155 (See pages 134-156 for the full discussion.)
9 - Ulrich Wilcken and Eugene N. Borza, Alexander the Great (New York: Norton, 1967), ix.
10 - J. B. Bury and Russell Meiggs, A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great, 4th ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1975; reprint, 1977), 515. The comments found here are worth the reader’s time.
11 - Plutarch et al., Plutarch's Moralia, The Loeb Classical Library; 197, 222, 245, 305-306, 337, 405, 424-425, 321, 426, 406, 427, 470, 428-429 (Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, 1927).
12 - Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography, Hellenistic Culture and Society; 11 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 445.
13 - A. B. Bosworth and Elizabeth Baynham, Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 6.
14 - Green, Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography.
15 - Ibid., 266.
16 - Bury and Meiggs, A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great, 546, note 8.
17 - Martis, Nicholas. Alexander the Great - Sui Generis. Retrieved February 21, 2005, from the Hellenic Communication Service Web site at: http://www.helleniccomserve.com/alexander.html
18 - Martis, The Falsification of Macedonian History, 68, 69.
19 - But for fragments, the original sources for the Alexander story all have been lost.
20 - Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, 366.
21 - Martis, The Falsification of Macedonian History, 69.
22 - Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 1270.
23 - Callisthenes Pseudo and Richard Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance, Penguin Classics (London, England; New York, NY, USA: Penguin Books, 1991).
24 - Hornblower and Spawforth, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 553.
25 - Strabo, Horace Leonard Jones, and John Robert Sitlington Sterrett, The Geography of Strabo, 8 vols., The Loeb Classical Library (London; New York: W. Heinemann; G.P. Putnam's sons, 1917). Book I 4.9
26 - Waldemar Heckel and John Yardley, Alexander the Great: Historical Texts in Translation, BlackwellSourcebooks in Ancient History (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004), 266.
27 - W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great (Boston,: Beacon Press, 1956).
28 - N. G. L. Hammond, The Genius of Alexander the Great (London: Duckworth, 1997), 190.
29 - A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 160, 161.
30 - Wilcken and Borza, Alexander the Great, 221.
31 - Green, Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography, 456. Green’s footnote #61 at page 561 refers to Tarn, Proc. Brit. Acad. 19 (1933), 123-66 = MP, pp. 243-86, cf. his Alexander the Great, vol. II, pp. 440 ff.
32 - Fredricksmeyer, E. (1997) ‘Alexander and the Kingship in Asia’, in Bosworth and Baynham, Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, 166.
33 - See: http://www.helleniccomserve.com/olympicmacedonians.html
34 - In his book, The Shadow of Olympus, Eugene N. Borza, the eminent scholar of Macedonia writes: “The most blatant account is that of Martis (The Falsification of Macedonian History). This book, written by a former Minister for Northern Greece, is an polemical anti-Yugoslav tract so full of historical errors and distortions that the prize awarded it by the Academy of Athens serves only to reduce confidence in the scientific judgment of that venerable society of scholars.” Eugene N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992), 91n.

(March 2005)

Alexander the Great - Sui generis

ALEXANDER THE GREAT - SUI GENERIS
by Nikolaos Martis,

Former Minister of Macedonia and Thrace, President of Macedonian Estia. Translation by Prof. Nina Gatzoulis (Supreme Secretary of the Pan-Macedonian Association USA).

"Not even to me does it seem possible that he turned out to be unlike any other human being without divine intervention," wrote the historian Arrian as he completed his book, Alexandri anabasis [Expedition of Alexander].

Plutarch penned in his Moralia. De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute [Morals. About the Virtue or Fortune of Alexander the Great], "States which never got to know Alexander were as though they had never seen the light of the sun" and "If one were to judge from what Alexander taught and did, he would verify that he was a philosopher."

The American producers who aspire to make a film about the life of Alexander the Great should not ignore these two quotations above by well-known and respected philosophers. Hollywood, due to its influence and authority, but also, as former President Clinton wrote, due to the supremacy and muscle the US exercises on a global level, must not be lured into casual scripts and ignore Alexander's magnificence and the fact that he was born a mortal, lived as a superhuman and died as a god. Alexander's accomplishments and endeavors had a profoundly positive effect in the development of future societies.

The mighty Romans were the first people to name Alexander "Great." They deified him and not only considered him a role model, but also embraced his life, as well as the arts and sciences that he spread in the East. It was through the Romans that Greek civilization and culture were transferred and established in the West. Thus western civilization was paved and took roots in the western world. Chateaubriand wrote "If someone was compared to a god, that was Alexander." The preceding quotation is not a casual comment.

Alexander's speech at Opis in 324 BC, otherwise known as Alexander's Oath, given about one year before his death in the presence of 9,000 Greek and Asian officers, has become the beacon of state leaders and international organizations in their route toward the third millennium. The main points which he made in this speech are as follows:

• Now that the wars are over, I wish you to find happiness through peace.

• May all mortals live from now on in harmony, as one nation, for the sake of common prosperity.

• Consider the world as your country, with common laws, governed by men of merit, regardless of race.

• I do not distinguish between Greeks and barbarians, as do the narrow-minded.

• I am not interested in the country or race of origin of people.

• I only distinguish people according to their virtues.

• To me every virtuous foreigner is Greek and each non-virtuous Greek is worse than a barbarian.

• If you are ever faced with differences, do not resort to arms, but resolve them peacefully. If need be, I can act as your arbitrator.

• God should not be viewed as an authoritarian ruler, but as our common father.

• As for myself, I consider all persons, black or white, as equals.

• I wish you to be my partners and not just members of our commonwealth.

• As far as I am able, I shall see to it that all my promises come true.

• Regard this oath as a symbol of love.

The oath at Opis conveys a message, which originated in Macedonia and has not been emphasized enough. The message, emanating from Alexander's native land, was not to conquer nations or to acquire riches, or even to satisfy rivalrous passions between nations, but to unite all people with the bonds of peace, amalgamation and mutual communication.

Alexander's comments to Diogenes during their brief encounter in Corinth, his policy during his expedition to the East, culminating with the oath at Opis and the historic statement, recorded by Diodorus, that the "enemies were required by the conqueror to be happy," all attest to the fact that Alexander's ambition was to civilize and not to conquer. Professor Panagiotis Kanellopoulos, who is one of the most respected, well-read and broadly accepted statesmen of Greece, writes that Alexander severely penalized those who abused the public treasury or ill-treated the citizens of his commonwealth. Thus, knowledgeable sources and scholars inform us that the young king respected the public treasury while remaining a philanthropist.

As Plutarch notes, Alexander expressed the above policy before he initiated his expedition in the East. The recorded occasion was during the time when he met the famous Greek philosopher Diogenes in Corinth. When Alexander asked Diogenes what he would like to have from the Macedonian king, the philosopher answered that the only thing he wished was for Alexander to move, so that he would not obscure the sun. Diogenes' reply did not anger Alexander who said, "If I did not intend to merge the barbarian nations with Greece, and by passing through the continent to bring civilization to it, and then the end of the world and ocean, in order to extend Macedonia that far and spread and convey to all nations Hellenic justice and peace, I wouldn't be content doing nothing and just using power for corporeal pleasures. However, I would be envious of Diogenes' simplicity."

Indeed, throughout his life Alexander never used his authority for pleasures.

When Alexander was leaving Macedonia to undertake his expedition against the Persians, he distributed his property and belongings. Alexander was asked what he would keep for himself and his answer was that he would only keep "hope."

Jews throughout the centuries have been using the name Alexander. This has been in accordance with their high priest's decision that "Alexander's name should remain in eternity." The decision was taken because, when Alexander visited Jerusalem, her exhibited respect towards the high priest and for the Jewish religious worship. It is said that when the Jews of Jerusalem offered Alexander gold and silver, he refused to accept them; the Jewish high priest told Alexander: "We serve only one God who created Heaven and Earth and all visible and invisible things that no human being is able to explain." To this Alexander replied, "As worthy worshippers of the true God, be in peace, for your God is my God and my peace is your peace. I shall not treat you any different from the other nations, since you serve the living God."

A few years ago our ambassador to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, told me that even today Pakistani school students are learning that the remains of Alexander were placed in a coffin with his hands outside the coffin when he died. The crowd was bearing Alexander's remains around the city, shouting "Alexander's hands were clean when he was born and with clean hands he goes to the other world." Pakistanis even today regard Alexander as their national hero.

Alexander never followed Aristotle's advice that he should treat the Greeks differently than the non-Greeks. By respecting the traditions of the people he conquered, eliminating discrimination and prejudice between conquerors and conquered, Alexander the Great elevated the peoples he conquered from an economic, social and political point of view to a higher echelon. That is the reason why Alexander, still today, is loved and respected by a multitude of nations in the East and West and why various legends of different nationalities claim Alexander as their own. Montesquieu, the great French political philosopher, wrote, "When Alexander was gone, nations became orphans."

Voltaire, according to Pavlos Tzermias, wrote "Alexander changed the nature of Asia, Greece, and Egypt and gave new direction to the world." With his marriage to Roxane, the daughter of Darius, Alexander was the first one to revoke racial discrimination. He reaffirmed his stance about inequity by assigning individuals from within the peoples he conquered to assume responsible governing positions in his commonwealth.

Alexander's behavior toward the relatives of Persian King Darius whom he had captured (his mother, wife and children), was admired by all for the respect that he showed to these royal family members. He did not treat the family of his opponent as a conqueror and as a mighty king would treat enslaved subjects. Darius' mother came to love Alexander as her own son, because in treating her with respect, the purity of his youth became evident to her. She refused to abandon him when there was a plot that gave her the opportunity to escape. After Alexander passed away, she went on a hunger fast for five days and committed suicide, as Kanellopoulos writes.

"Darius, you have been conquered by an enemy whose character is far superior of any other human. . .This enemy is virtuous and brave" -- comforting words to Darius, offered by the manservant of Stateira, the wife of Darius, who had escaped when he saw Darius lamenting after the news he received about his wife's death while she was giving birth to their child.

Droysen, in his book, Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen [The History of Alexander the Great], wrote that when Darius was informed that the Macedonian king showed every respect toward his captive family and that the dead Stateira was buried with all honors fit for a queen, he raised his arms toward the sky saying, "If I return as a conqueror I want to be able to return Alexander's kindness during my family's misfortune, and if we cease ruling may the gods intervene so no other than Alexander should occupy the throne of Persia."

By liberating various cities in the East which were under bondage, Alexander abolished oligarchy and established democracy. He founded cities, theaters, and gymnasia, built new roads, established common currency and promoted commerce among nations. He mitigated Greek civilization in the East and extremely influenced Arab nations. As Dennis Overbye of the New York Times wrote, the meeting of the two civilizations, Greek and Arabian, became an important historic fact. The Arabs translated Greek literary works into Arabic, which subsequently were passed to Europe during the 12th century AD through Latin, thus establishing the basis for the European Renaissance.

Dr. Constantine Romanos, Assistant Professor in the Philosophy Department of Aegean University, in his interesting book, The Hellenistic Islam, describes [this period of history]: "the missing Hellenistic legacy of Islam is the missing link of the history of civilization." As Romanos mentions, no research has been done in Greece about this issue; the former Metropolitan of Great Britain, Methodios Fougias, has carried out the only serious attempt. Metropolitan Methodios' remarkable research, combined with the opening of Alexandria's library and the reports of various Egyptian scientists in regards to the great benefits of the legendary ancient library of Alexandria, have helped to gain interest on an international level in the works of Hellenized Islamic philosophers in the Medieval period.

As Overbye observed (Kathimerini, 11/04/2001) the scientific work of the Arab philosophers, which was the end result of the success of Alexander the Great, was interrupted by the Crusades, the invasions of the Mongols and the Ottomans. The latter imposed their presence for about five centuries and during that period there was no academic scholarship at all in the area. Overbye wrote that the Ottomans were not interested in sciences and Dr. Romanos observed that they did not identify with Islam.

It is not by chance that Mohammed the Prophet refers in the Koran to the double-horned King (Alexander) as a prophet who has the ability to punish those committing injuries against others and to reward the individuals who carry out good deeds.

Buddhists consider Alexander equal to God.

St. Nectarios, in his book, The Ecumenical Synods, writes "Hellenism spread by Alexander paved the way for Christianity by Emperor Constantine the Great."

St. Vassilios the Great does not by chance present Alexander the Great as a role model of self-discipline to young people.

Mankind today needs a positive projection of Alexander's deeds and work and this is an ardent aspiration of the UN. This goal could be satisfied by a film supported by true historic veracity, rather than imaginary or profiteering scripts, aiming to humiliate Alexander whom the passing of time has indeed respected. This could result not only in insulting nations conquered by Alexander, but it would also offend the faithful of other great religions.

Arrian, in his book The Ascension of Alexander VII, mentions that, according to Aristobulus the historian who accompanied Alexander, the Macedonian king was diligent, fearless, brave, respectful to gods, and self-disciplined in his corporeal pleasures. Arrian adds that it is not of great significance that Alexander committed some errors. He was the only king who was remorseful about his mistakes and this has to do with his gentle nature. According to Aristobulus, the symposia in which Alexander participated did not last long, since Alexander did not drink much.

Plutarch, employing Alexander's journal as a source, wrote in his book Parallel Live. Alexander: "Also in wine he was less self-indulgent than what he was considered. He was of the habit of staying at the symposia talking much, but drinking little." Plutarch adds that he was also temperate in eating.

Alexander is honored and will be honored and respected forever by the great religions of the world. [Hollywood-style] scripts, therefore, and other attempts to blemish his personality, are ineffective. Regardless of what has been mentioned above, common sense negates allegations about Alexander's homosexuality or drinking habits. It would have been impossible for Alexander to lead his army in such successful military campaigns, achieved by no one preceding or following him, if these attributes were true.

Film scripts which attempt to portray Alexander the Great as a homosexual are of poor taste and lack seriousness. Plutarch stated in his Moralia. De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute [Morals. About the Virtue or Fortune of Alexander the Great]: "Let us bring up the deeds of those who have generally been identified as philosophers and let us compare their deeds with the deeds of Alexander. Philoxenus, his coast guard commander, wrote to Alexander that he found in Ionia a very handsome boy, one that could be compared to none other in beauty, and that if Alexander wanted the boy, he could send the youth to him. The king replied to him bitterly and in a scolding fashion: 'Horrible man, have you known me up to now guilty of such crimes? How dare you flatter me with such vile pleasures?'"

Other points could be brought to disprove Alexander's homosexuality allegations: Alexander was married to Roxane and had an heir by her; he was also married to the daughter of Darius; a queen of the East had asked Alexander to father a child with her.

In this age of loss of direction and human dignity, we search for great men to guide and inspire our youth and to elevate the quality of life. Falsification and degradation of the personalities and statuses of long established heroes of history for political or materialistic gains and minimization of their positive effectiveness is not only offensive to every civilized human being, but is also a crime against humanity itself. In the case of Alexander the Great, nothing undertaken by those who now wish to turn historical facts around, in order to try and belittle him or tarnish his fame with unfounded claims, can affect his grandeur and place in [world] history.

Judaism and Hellenism: The Encounter

JUDAISM AND HELLENISM: THE ENCOUNTER
by Clare Goldfarb

On the eve of the invasion of the Persian Empire by Alexander of Macedon, Judaea was a small insignificant province within Darius' domain. As with other states in the empire, Judaea was allowed to conduct its own cultural and religious affairs. However, change was coming. Like a juggernaut, Alexander and his Macedonians marched across the Hellespont, defeated Darius' army at Issus and marched south along the coast to Egypt. Along the way, those towns which did not acquiesce to the conqueror were laid siege to and destroyed. After destroying Tire and Gaza all towns sent delegations to the young King, Jerusalem included. This was the first official encounter between the Jews and the Greeks, between Judaism and Hellenism, an encounter that eventually changed the course of Western civilization.

Alexander never went to Jerusalem, nor did he spend much time in Judaea. But such was the myth of the young conqueror, that even Jews created a legend regarding the Macedonian--a legend that is uniquely Jewish--one that has Alexander going to Jerusalem and recognizing the power of the One God and he himself bowing down before Him. This story was told by Josephus indicating that the first encounters between Jews and Macedonians were uneventful. Alexander continued on his way. At Memphis he honored Apis, the sacred bull of Egypt and held Greek athletic contests without knowing the significance of introducing such Greek sports in an alien culture. Thus, for the first time, there was a fusion of the Orient with the rites of Greece. Before he left Egypt, Alexander laid out a new town, a town destined to become one of the greatest in the ancient world, Alexadria-by-Egypt. Traditions say that the Jews were invited to settle in the new city.

When Alexander defeated the Persians at Gaugamela, the Macedonian became undisputed Emperor of the Persian Empire. By destroying the Persian Kingdom, Alexander had abolished the frontier between East and West. He opened the countries of the Orient to the Greeks from the Mediterranean Sea--merging the East and the West into one cultural body. The resulting mixture of culture was to be known as Hellenism. Tush, the Hellenistic Era was born. In the remote hills of Judaea Hellenism came face to face with deeply rooted Jewish traditions. Inevitably, the two cultures clashed.

The Jews inherited from their ancestors a faith in one God. They clung tenaciously to their prophets and to their stern biblical laws. The new ways, and above all, the new religion came as something alien to their ancient customs. It would have been easy to succumb to the more prosperous, more attractive way of living and many Jews did. But others would not yield and, instead they stood firm against efforts to change them.

Since the destruction of the first Temple by the Babylonians (586 B.C.E.), and the deportation of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Jews have been living in all quarters of the Empire. They prospered and were not only farmers but successful men of commerce and international trade. The Babylonian trade routes had taken them to all corners of the Near East. When Cyrus defeated the Babylonians in 539 B.C.E., the King of Kings allowed the Jews to return to Judaea and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Many Jews chose not to return. Papyri, found on the island of Elephantine near Aswan, revealed the presence of a Jewish garrison settlement from the sixth century to the fifth century B.C.E.

During the Babylonian dispersion or Diaspora, the religion underwent an evolution. The Temple had been tied by law to Jerusalem and sacrifice had to be offered in accordance with a rigid ritual and formula. Because there no longer was a Temple in Jerusalem for sacrifice, the Jews built synagogues for religious assemblies. Instead of rituals for God, Jews offered prayers to God. The faith was no longer tied to a specific priesthood, temple or country. The Jew could practice his religion anywhere and still be in communication with God. The Jewish religion became an exportable commodity. The religion was now freed from constraints of time and place. Survival of the Jew in captivity and in the Diaspora was now assured.

Even in exile, the Temple held a place in the religious hearts of the Jew. A remnant of people still lived near the ruins, and along with those Jews that did return to Judaea, rebuilt the Sanctuary. Again the High Priest became the most important official in Jerusalem. Although many turned to commerce and trade, the majority of the population was engaged in agriculture. Judaeans prospered and multiplied. Diodorus tells us that "Jews were from the start a populous nation." Being devoted to their own traditions, the Jews, at first, were not affected by the Hellenic civilization.

Before Alexander, there was little contact between the the cultures. There is no mention of the Jews in Greek literature; perhaps a stray remark by Herodotus, regarding the practice of circumcision among the Syrians refers to Jewish practice, but the reference could also refer to the Egyptians. Certainly the Jews, being traders, did have contact with the Greeks, but the uniformity of the language, Aramaic, concealed national differences. We must bear in mind that barbarian mean 'non-Greek speaking' and that Greeks considered anyone not speaking their language as uncivilized. To the Greek visitor both the Jew and the Iranian in Asia Minor were equally Babylonian. It was only after the conquest that the Greeks became aware of the Jews. When Alexander led his army out to Tyre against Darius, he had some Jewish auxiliaries among his troops. After he defeated Darius at Gaugamela and was proclaimed King of kings, he ordered the restoration of the temple in Babylon. For the first time, the Greeks learned of the Jewish aversion to idolatry; "neither corporal punishment nor heavy fines could compel Alexander's Jewish soldiers to work on rebuilding a heathen temple."

It was in the third century, that Greek writers began to notice the Jews. Theophrastus, Aristotle's successor, regarded the Jews as "philosophers." Clearches believed that philosophers in Syria are called "Ioudaoi became the inhabit the territory called 'Ioudaoi.'" It was Hecataeus of Abdera, an advisor to Ptolemy I, who wrote an extensive history of the Jews which may have been part of a larger history of Egypt. It became a standard book on the subject and three centuries later it was incorporated into Diodorus' book, Universal History. Hecataeus relied on Egyptian priests for his report on Jewish origins and from their point of view the Jews were emigrants from Egypt. He tells us that a "pestilence arose in Egypt" and that the people ascribe their trouble to strangers living in the midst practicing different rites of religion. These aliens were driven from their country. He writes,

"The colony was headed by a man called, Moses, outstanding both for his wisdom and for his courage. On taking possession of the land he founded, besides other cities, on that is now most reknown of all, called Jerusalem. In addition he established the temple that they hold in chief veneration, instituted their forms of worship and ritual, drew laws and ordered their political institution." (Diodorus XL 3:3-6)

This was the first mention of the Torah in Greek literature. Hecataeus tells us the population of Jerusalem was 120,000. Possibly the figures were exaggerated, but Jews were already a numerous people and the frontiers of their country too narrow to hold them. Soon after 300 B.C.E. Greek intellectuals lost interest in the Judaeans and it wasn't until the Maccabean revolt that the Jews attracted attention once again.

Were the Jews aware of the Greeks before the Macedonians invaded? Of course they were. In the book of Genesis, the Table of Nations mentions, 'Yavan,' meaning "Ionians," the name all "barbarians" gave to the Greeks. Myceanaean pottery was found on both sides of the Jordan River. The Second Samuel tells us King David apparently employed mercenaries from Crete. After the Babylonian exile, Jewish merchants traveled to all parts of the Persian empire. Greek mercenaries fought in Palestine in the pay of Egyptian pharaohs. Papyri, discovered both in Egypt and the Dead Sea caves, are shedding considerable light on a period that was lacking in sources.

After the death of Alexander, his empire was divided up between his generals, among whom were Ptolemy and Seleucus. Palestine, an important trade route between Egypt and Asia Minor, was hotly contested, but ultimately Ptolemy controlled Egypt and Palestine, while Seleucus controlled Syria. Under the Ptolemaic kings, life was relatively benign. Ptolemy and his heirs continued the Persian custom of allowing each province to run its own cultural and religious affairs with the proviso that all takes go to Alexandria instead of Antioch. Hectaeus tells us that Jerusalem was ruled by an aristocratic hereditary priesthood appointed for life. With one hundred years of relative peace, the Jews prospered both in Judaea and in the Diaspora.

From 321 B.C.E. to 30 B.C.E., Asia and Egypt obeyed different masters. For the Diaspora Jews this meant they were not only politically divided, but they were also culturally divided. The Near East from Sinai to the Himalayas continued to think and speak in Aramaic, but the language of the Persian empire disappeared in Ptolemaic Egypt. Here a non-Egyptian had to speak Greek. But it also meant that foreigner could not only become a Greek in soul, but could become a citizen of a Greek city.

Alexander's new city needed workers and immigrants streamed in from all parts of the empire. The King had already transferred Jews from Samaria to Egypt and the Palestine campaigns of Ptolemy I brought more Jews as captives and slaves. In the first century B.C.E., Philo estimated the Jewish population of Alexandria as more than one million, outnumbering Judaea. The figures are probably exaggerated. Modern historians estimate the total population to be about 300,000 and it grew to one million in Roman times.

It is amazing how quickly the Jews in Ptolemaic Egypt gave up their familiar Aramaic and adopted Greek. The Hellenization of the Jews began inconspicuously. First it infected their language, manners and customs and eventually encroached on their morals, ethics and religion. Greek games were popular and nude wrestling commonplace among Jewish youths. I Maccabees tells us, "They built a sports-stadium in the gentile style in Jerusalem." It was during this period, that the Torah was translated into Greek.

In Palestine and Babylonia Hebrew remained a literary language. Oral tradition in Aramaic was sufficient to keep the uneducated informed. But in Egypt knowledge of Hebrew became exceptional while there were all the attractions of Greek literature. The Torah had to be made accessible in Greek, both for the religious services and for private reading.

The story of the Septuagint (LXX) as the Greek translation of the Holy Scriptures is called, is told to us in the Letters of Aristeas as preserved in The Antiquities of the Jews. An Egyptian Jew, Aristeas, tells us that Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.E.) invited a group of seventy-two scholars to translate the Law of the Jews for inclusion in the Alexandria Library. Josephus relates the tale,

"If then it please thee, O King, thou mayst write to the high priest of the Jews, to send six elders of every tribe, and those such as are most skillful of the law, that by their means we may learn the clear and agreeing sense of these books, and may obtain an accurate interpretation of their contents, and so may have such a collection of these as may be suitable to their desire." (Josephus, II:4-5)

It is unlikely that this tale is true. The 'LXX' reaimed an exclusive "Jewish possession until the Christians too it over. We don't even know whether it was deposited in the great Ptolemaic Library of Alexandria. But in any case, the Old Testament was now available to the Greek speaking world, Jewish and Gentile alike.

Confronted with Greek ideas, the Jews attempted to combine Greek intellectual values with Hebrew moral concerns. Jewish literature of this period--Apocrypha and Apocalyptic--characterizes it as one of transition. Certainty has been lost, doubt and skepticism has taken its place. It's major themes include an emphasis on "personal piety, reward and punishment, resurrection, immortality and the Messiah." The biblical book, Ecclesiates (Greek for the Hebrew Koheleth, meaning teacher), written between 250 and 200 B.C.E., is far closer in spirit to Greek Epicurian and Skeptic philosophies than to the God-intoxicated earlier writings of the Bible. The author writes that "he searched in wisdom and pleasure for the solution to the riddles of life" and came to the conclusion that "all is vanity." The Koheleth says that the solution to the problem of life is man's relation to God. He concludes, "Fear god and keep His commandments; for this is the whole man."

Because of the extreme suppression of the Jews under the Seleucids during the second century B.C.E., a type of literature known as apocalyptic (Greek for revelation) arose. The hopes of the faithful were fortified by visions of a glorious future and in such beliefs as a last judgment, the resurrection of the dead and that the Messiah will come and rescue His people.

The Book of Daniel, which was written around 160 B.C.E. is full of such prophecy. The Book is basically an account of a young man who clings to his faith in spite of extreme pressures. The author had no intention of writing history and anyone desiring using it as a historical source must decipher the allusions. Tcherikover maintains that we have to compare events with each individual verse in order to use Daniel properly. Daniel takes "refuge in apocalyptic revelation of God's Justice." The Book is set in the time of the Babylonian exile. Daniel is the prophet who interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dreams. After one such dream, the author writes,

"...there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence..." (Daniel 12:1-2)

Resurrection is mentioned for the first time in Jewish canonical literature. Most of the Jewish writers wrote anonymously and made few references to the historical events of the day.

Jewish philosophers tried to reconcile Jewish morality and ethics with Hellenistic logic and rationality. Philo Judaeus (aka. Philo of Alexandria) was a Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher from one of the wealthiest families in Egypt. He received a thorough education in the Holy Scriptures and in Greek literature and philosophy. His output included metaphysics, ethics and Biblical commentary. Philo believed the divinity of Jewish Law was the basis of all true philosophy. He believed Judaism to be a universal religion and that it did not achieve this universality by any abandonment of its believes or practices. "The Law of Moses was enshrined in his soul." Many of his works are concerned with the allegorical interpretation of Genesis and with the exposition of the Law of Moses for Gentiles.

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who wrote an extensive history of the Jews call, The Antiquities of the Jews. The first half of the book is retelling biblical history, with some condensation and embellishment, but when he writes about the Hellenistic period, he relies on official records and various Hellenistic writers such as Berosus and Manetho, and for the Maccabean revolt he relies on the First Book of the Maccabees.

The First and Second Book of the Maccabees, which are now part of the Apocrypha (Greek for hidden), are our main sources for the period both before and during the Hasmonean rebellion. Both I and II Maccabees are accounts of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid state. I Maccabees opens with a brief summary of the history of the Greek empire from Alexander the Great to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The remainder of the book covers the period of the Maccabean Revolt to the death of Simon (135 B.C.E.). II Maccabees is made up of glorious accounts of the victories of Judah Maccabee-The Hammer. It includes supernatural ailments, angels, miracles and resurrection of the dead. But it also relates events prior to the revolt. It is the only source furnishing the "historian with ...orderly material on the period of the Hellenizer's rule in Jerusalem."

Another account that is significant for the explanation of the events in Judaea is The Wisdom of Ben Sira, or as it is known in the Apocrypha, Ecclesiasticus. Ecclesiasticus is the only book that we have knowledge of the author. His grandson translated the Book into Greek in about 132 B.C.E. some fifty years after Ben Sira wrote it, and that is the version that had been preserved. Ben Sira was a scholar who dedicated his life to education the young and preaching morality. His book contains hints and allusions to the great tribulations that were occurring in Judaea in 180 B.C.E. He hints of the growing dissatisfaction of the poor and of the great schism between rich and poor. He understood the danger threatening Judaism from Hellenization and fought against it. He writes, "Seek not (to understand) what is too wonderful for thee, and search not out that which is hid from thee." Ben Sira declares the "fear of God is the foundation of all wisdom."

Modern historians looking at these writings wonder, how Hellenized were the Jews? Unfortunately the works of the great historians of the Hellenistic Age are lost and those that do survive are fragmentary. Most of the sources that modern historians rely on are written by Jews who were either interested in retelling biblical history or recounting events in terms of whether "he did evil--or good--in the eyes of God." If it was not part of Jewish canonical literature, the Rabbis were no interested in keeping it. For the period between the fourth century and the early Christian Era, the scholars rely on the Apocrypha, which had been preserved in Greek and Latin translations by the early Christian fathers and is now part of the Old Testament in the Catholic and Greek Bibles.

All the historians agree that the process of Hellenization is not a simple one, and most agree that the sources are scanty. Study of Greek influence on Judaism developed into a special branch of research, with each scholar staking out different claims. Some view Hellenization as profound--Bickerman and Hengel. Some view Hellenization as superficial--Tcherikover. Others say there is truth in both positions. In the rural areas that had minimal contact with the Greek world, the impact was negligible. Life continued unchanged. Maximum impact was found in the large cities where the Greek influence was great. Every Greek city had its gymnasium, a school of physical training and rhetoric (which mean literature, art, and politics.). They gymnasium was the social center and main place of entertainment for the polis, especially for young men. Pious Jews were offended by the sight of naked athletes and by the Greek plays and the poetry recited in these gymnasiums. Nevertheless, Hellenism spread, at least among the wealthy Jews and the young aristocrats. Unfortunately, political history is hampered by the fragmentary nature of the surviving sources. The First and Second Book of the Maccabees are are main sources.

After one hundred years, Palestine again changed hands. The Seleucid king, Antiochus III, took control of Palestine c. 200 B.C.E. Soon after he took control, he promulgated an edict granting privileges to Jerusalem. He gave Jews permission to live "according to their ancestral laws." Another question arises, What was the nature of these ancestral laws? Bickerman says that the "Law of Moses" is meant. Tcherikover maintains that the concept is broader, it not only contains elements of the Jewish religion, but also the maintaining of political institutions.

Josephus records the chronicle of the Hellenized Tobiad family in Jerusalem. The most significant political event to occur was the transfer of responsibility event to occur was the transfer of responsibility for tax collections from the High Priest to a member of the Tobiad family. The High priest, Onias, refused to pay Ptolemy III (246-221 B.C.E.) the 20 talents of silver due annually on his own private property, thus endangering the safety of Judaea. He remained unmoved by Ptolemy's threat to sequester land and settle soldiers on it. Joseph, son of Tobiah, went to the King and offered to collect the taxes. A dichotomy was produced in Judean administration. The Temple administration remained entirely in priestly hands, as did all religious authority. But everything concerned with the king's taxes was now handled by Joseph and his kinsmen. Their influence and prestige rose considerably. They became very wealthy and influential. The young men became Hellenized. They adopted Greek names, manners and lifestyle. To succeed they broke any "Mosaic Law in the line of duty. Joseph and his sons emerged as the leaders in the Hellenizing movement.

A change of policy occurred under Antiochus IV Epiphanesa (187-175 B.C.E..). Reasons for the change are complex. II Maccabees relates what happened next. Jason, Onias' brother, obtained the high-priesthood by corrupt means. He petitioned the king and promised him 360 talents in silver coin immediately and 80 talents from future revenues. He promised to build a sports-stadium and to arrange for the education of young men. The king agreed and, as soon as he seized the priesthood, Jason made the Jews conform to the Greek way of life. Hellenism reached a high point with the introduction of foreign customs. Was Jerusalem becoming a Greek polis? The High Priest still controlled religious affairs and as yet there was no interference with religious practices. Green claims that Jason envisioned a privileged enclave; a Greek-style politeuma within the Jewish theocracy. It is interesting to note, Bickerman, in The God of the Maccabees, says, "alien communities in the midst of a foreign population are frequently found also in other places in the Hellenistic Orient."

After three years of peace Antiochus again wanted to invade Egypt and was in need of money. Menelaus outbid Jason and so diverted the high priesthood to himself. Jason was forced to flee the city. When Onias, the rightful priest, who had fled to sanctuary at Daphne, heard that Menelaus had sold gold plate belonging to the Temple to Tyre, the old priest denounced him. Menelaus had Onias killed. This killing angered the people. When the king came to Tyre, a delegation was sent to the king and Menelaus was called to Tyre to stand before the king. Leaving his brother, Lysimachus in charge, he went before the king and through bribery, Menelaus was acquitted and remained in office. This event angered the people and a riot broke out in Jerusalem, in the course of which, Lysimachus was killed.

Meanwhile, Antiochus undertook his second invasion of Egypt. Upon a false report of Antiochus' death, the deposed High Priest, Jason, raised an army and attacked Jerusalem. Menelaus took refuge in the citadel, and Jason continued to massacre 'his fellow citizens.' But, he did not gain control of the government. When news reached Antiochus, whose Egyptian campaign had been stopped by the growing power of Rome, it was clear to him that Judaea was in a state of rebellion. So he set out in a 'savage mood,' took Jerusalem by storm and, without mercy, told his troops to slaughter everyone they met. Because he needed money to pay the heavy fine imposes by Rome, he stripped the temple of its golden altar and all of its sacred vessels. The king issued a decree throughout his empire: "his subjects were to become one people throughout his empire and abandon their own laws and religion." The citizens of Judaea were forbidden to practice their religion.

"...sabbath and feast days were to be profaned; the temple and its ministers to be defiled. Altars, idols, and sacred precincts were to be established; swine and other unclean beasts to be offered in sacrifice. They must leave their sons uncircumcised; they must make themselves in every way abominable, unclean, and profane and so forget the law and change all their statues. The penalty for disobedience is death..." (I Maccabees 1:45-50)

Pagan altars were built throughout the towns of Judaea. All the scrolls of law which were found were torn up and burned. Many found the strength to resist. The Second Book of Maccabees relates tales of martyrs who preferred to die rather than to obey Antiochus' law. The First Book of the Maccabees takes up the narrative. When Mattathias, a priest of the Joarib family from Jerusalem, saw the desecreation of the temple, he said, "We shall not obey the command of the king, nor will we deviate one step from our forms of worship." With those words, he killed the Jew who had stepped forward and was going to offer sacrifice to the pagan gods. He and his sons fled to the hills and set up secret centers of resistance.

The Maccabean revolt can be divided up into four periods, by years. From 166 to 164 B.C.E., there was guerrilla warfare under the command of Juda Maccabeaus, culminating in the capture of Jerusalem. II Maccabees records what happened. In 164 B.C.E. Judah marched into Jerusalem at the head of his armed forces. After three years of pollution, the Temple was cleansed and rededicated. The festival lasted eight days. "A measure was passed by the public assembly, with the approval of Judah Maccabeaus, to the effect that the entire Jewish race should keep these days every year." By this act of the assembly, Judah and his people "declared themselves the true Israel." It had far reaching significance. All previous festivals had been declared by the people. This measure was without precedent in Judaea. But, it was in complete accord with the practices of the Greeks. When an event was considered important, the Greeks believed it should be commemorated for all time. Thus Judah "initiated a practice of his enemies, but at the same time incorporated it into Judaism." This was the first step along the path, that "introduced Hellenic usages into Judaism without making a sacrifice of Judaism." Now that he was master of Jerusalem, Judah built high wall and strong tower to protect the Temple, and fortified the town around Jerusalem. He was now the master of Jerusalem.

From 164-160 B.C.E., after purifying the Temple, Judah proceeded to avenge the Jews who had been attacked by their Gentile neighbors. Epiphanes died in 163 B.C.E. leaving a young boy, Antiochus V Eupator, as king. His guardian, Lysias, who as regent controlled the who empire, set out to make a final end and to the irritating Judaeans. Lysias, along with his elephants, the tanks of the ancient world, marched on Judaea. Lysias captured the Maccabean fortress of Beth-Zur, south of Jerusalem. He then defeated Judah at Beth-Zechariah, which left the way open to Jerusalem. But his victory was never followed up. Lysias heard that Philip, a rival general, was marching on Antioch from eastern Syria. He, therefore, hastily concluded a peace treaty with Judah, so that he could return home and deal with affairs there.

The Maccabeans were victorious. As a condition of peace, Antiochus' decrees against the Jewish religion, were officially annulled. Judah's conquest of Jerusalem and the rededication of the Temple restored religious freedom. Jerusalem was again the capital of as self-governing Jewish province. The Hellenistic reforms aimed against the ancient traditions were repulsed. The first religious war in history ended in victory for the Judeans. But the Hasmoneans wanted more. They desired complete freedom from Seleucid rule. The majority of the people were happy with the peach treaty and few wanted to follow Judah and his brothers as they fled the city.

But Judah's fortunes changed. He was able to enlist a large force and defeated the Greek general Nicanor in a major battle. A year later, Judah was killed fighting a new Syrian army under the leadership of Baccides. Hasmonean hopes for political power were dashed. 160-152 B.C.E. was a period of declining fortunes for the Hasmoneans. They fled from Jerusalem and settled in Michmash, removed from the center of power. But change was coming.

Luck was with them and the period from 152 to 141 B.C.E. was one of ascendancy for the family. The Seleucid throne was up for grabs again. Both Alexander Balas and Demetrius wanted Hasmonean support. Jonathan, the leader since Judah's death, played one against the other. Finally, Jonathan supported Demetrius and for this he was "richly rewarded."

In 152 B.C.E. he appeared for the first time as High Priest, shortly afterwards the Seleucids appointed him viceroy over a now wider Judaea. He not only consolidated his rule over Judaea, but also extended the territory. He was in firm control and was recognized as the sole representative of the Seleucids in Judaea. There is irony here. Twenty-five years ago, "Jason and Menelaus, acquired the high priesthood by bribing the gentile king, now the Hasmoneans followed suit; instead of bribes, they paid with services rendered." Simon, the last Maccabean brother, declared Judaea's independence (141 B.C.E. ) from Seleucid rule. He drove out the remnants of the Syrian garrison and the last of the Hellenizers from Acre.

Jewish progress was closely bound up with the slow decline of the Seleucid dynasty. The Hasmonean dynasty lasted until Pompey decided to annex Syria and Roman intervention in Judaea became inevitable. In 63 B.C.E. Pompey conquered Jerusalem and with one stroke dismembered the Hasmonean state and Judaea became one more province under the jurisdiction of Rome.

What were the achievements of the Hasmonean Dynasty? Not since the tenth century, under David and Solomon, had there been an independent Jewish state. The small state had been expanded under the dynasty. It became a major political entity embracing parts of Lebanon and Jordan. A basic policy of the Hasmonean was religious purification and whole populations were converted--Idumeans by John Hyrcanus and Itureans by Aristobulus I.

This most important achievement was the synthesis of Hellenism and Judaism. Bickerman calls it "moderate Hellenism." The leaders adopted Greek names, coins minted were bilingual, both in Greek and Hebrew. It was during this period that the religious community divided itself into three religious sects or parties, the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Saducees.

The Essenes were an ascetic sect that withdrew for a life of religious contemplation. They formed their own communities and developed a messianic religion. The Saducees were members of the priestly class, who formed an alliance with the Hasmonean ruling party. They were the wealthy and aristocratic class and were considered pro-Hellenizers. But in religious matters, they were conservative. The Saducees believed in the strict interpretation of the Torah--the Temple, priest and sacrifice were sacrosanct.

Their rivals, the Pharisees, were the opposite--very conservative in their politics, but liberal in their interpretation of the law. It is their view that prevailed. They stressed Oral Law along with the written law. They stood for the synagogue, the rabbi and prayer. It was they who introduced elasticity into Judaism which made it possible for the religion to survive in times of stress. The Pharisees introduced the concept of retribution and resurrection, "when the righteous would be rewarded to new life." They were against Hellenism because it represented an alien culture.

Modern historian have been asking the question, Why did Antiochus act as he did? Religious persecution had been unheard of in the pagan world. A ruler might impost his gods on the populous but would never stamp out the native gods. Antiochus was an educated Greek in the best Hellenic traditions. Religious persecution was not part of his cultural and political heritage. Elias Bickerman in The God of the Maccabees, proposed the theory that it was the Hellenized Jews, under Menelaus, who invited Antiochus into the city and allowed him to desecrate the Temple. Although he admits the evidence is scanty, he nevertheless tells us that Antiochus IV, acted as his father did. He had been invited in and he asked to revoke the charter his father proclaimed, namely that ancestral laws were to be observed. He further states that the Maccabean movement was a civil war, "a religious struggle between reformers and orthodox."

Victor Tcherikover counters Bickerman's assumption. He tells us that the sources are scanty. The persecution is associated with Antiochus' name alone. No where in the sources are Jason or Menelaus mentioned as religious persecutes. He looks for reasons in the rebellion that preceded the persecutions. Antiochus' persecution was part of an attempt to suppress a revolt that had broken out in Jerusalem and that had a clear cut religious character to it. The rebellion was a civil war between the aristocracy and the people, between the Tobiads and the Oniads, the followers of the assassinated High Priest.

Samuel K. Eddy, in The King is Dead, claims that Hellenization was profound in Judaea as well as in the Diaspora. Hellenization had been proceeding down to the reign of Antiochus IV. There were two principle complaints throughout the third century writings: hatred for foreign kingship and loathing for the hard conditions faced by the poverty ridden people in Judaea. While Antiochus was fighting in Egypt, the revolt broke out. Unfortunately, we are deprived of the Seleucid view of events. According to Eddy, the King was furious and he interpreted it as revolt against his rule. Antiochus did not abolish the practice of Judaism, he only forbade it. His decree did not apply to Jews in the Diaspora. From Antiochus' point of view, he did not carry out a religious persecution, he only took political action. He just set up new laws. He was acting as any Hellenist king would.

Oriental resistance was an effort to maintain a native way of life, whose continuity was threatened by Hellenism. Reaction was directed only at those Greek institutions which were actually against Oriental institutions. There was no opposition to Hellenism in its totality. One fact remains, against all odds, the Jewish people took up arms against a mighty empire in defense of their own ways and their own religion. When the time came they found a leader in Judah Maccabeaus. He and his band of warriors won national independence for their people. Their fight consolidated Judaism and made possible all the later developments of Jewish and European history. "The almost complete fusion of religion and nationalism...prevented assimilation."