12: .

80- . . .

-

-2013

Alexander the Great: king of Persia

187

Krzysztof Nawotka

Alexander the Great: king of Persia

Alexanders expedition to Asia and his conquest of the Persian empire are among the most popular topics among antiquity scholars and the edu-cated enthusiasts of ancient history alike. Except for Plutarch, interested in the character sketch, the ancient literary sources are concerned, for the most part, with history of warfare under Alexander. Surprising as it may sound, ancient authors pay almost no attention to Alexanders war aims and motives for taking on the Persian empire1. Arrians occasional reference to Alexanders longing or yearning (pothos)2 obfuscates more than it reveals. In the case of Alexanders motives and objections. the conspicuous silence of sources not necessarily results from their long chronological distance from the events they describe. It may in fact reflect the lack of discussion among Alexanders circle of power whether to start war. To put it in Tarns words: The primary reason why Alexander invaded Persia was, no doubt, that he never thought of not doing it; it was his inheritance3. War with Persia was certainly Philips idea taken over by Alexander. The original war aims of Philip II and Alexander the Great were probably limited to western Asia Minor, as is reflected in the territorial concession Darius III was will-ing to make after Issus when he offered to his opponent the land to the west of the river Halys4.

1 For a summary of the debate see Seibert 1998. 2 Arr., An., 1.3.5, 2.3.1, 3.1.5, 3.3.1, 4.28.4, 5.2.5, 7.1.1, 7.2.2, 7.16.2.3 Tarn 1948, I, p. 8; Briant 2002, p. 26.4 Diod., 17.39.1-2, 17.54.1; Curt., 4.5.1-8. For discussion of Darius peace pro-

posals see Nawotka K. Alexander the Great, Newcastle upon Tyne. 2010. P. 194.

A

Krzysztof Nawotka

188

Arrians source(s) probably conveyed the authentic words of Alexander hinting upon his longing/ yearning (pothos) at some crucial moments of his anabasis. The importance of it should not be denied even if one does not sub-scribe to the romantic vision of Alexander always yearning for surpassing limits and aiming at the unattainable. Alexanders desire to achieve more than others had done before him may relate to the ethos of Hellenized Macedonian aristo-crats of his days, defining themselves in reference to the heroic past. By cross-ing still new boarders and rivaling mythological figures, Alexander was prov-ing himself better than not just his companions but also his ancestors Heracles and Achilles5. His pothos thus led to demonstrating his unsurpassed arte, on the psychological and social level being the principal driving force of his expe-dition to Asia.

The modern scholarship is in no better position to gauge Alexander changing aims and objectives during his expedition to the East. The once influential concept of W.W. Tarn, attributing to Alexander the idea of propagating the idea of the brotherhood of the peoples of the empire, received devastating blows from the critical assessment of E. Badian never to be resurrected6. The spectacular fiasco to identify Alexanders grand ideas has paved the way for the now dominating minimalist approach most openly represented by A.B. Bosworth and reducing Alexander the Great to a soldier and conqueror who destroyed the Achaemenid empire and failed to replace it with any stable political organism7. The minimalist approach interprets

5 Ehrenberg V. Alexander and the Greeks, Oxford, 1938. P. 52-61; Brunt P. A. The Aims of Alexander, in: G&R 12, 1965; Goukowsky P. Alexandre et la con-qute de lOrient (336-323) // E. Will (ed.). Le monde grec et lOrient, II Le IVe sicle et lpoque hellnistique. Paris, 1975. P. 325-326; OBrien J. M. Alexander the Great: The Invisible Enemy. London, 1992. P. 50; Stewart A. Faces of Power: Alexanders Image and Hellenistic Politics. Berkeley, 1993. P. 78-88; Austin M. Alexander and the Macedonian Invasion of Asia: Aspects of the Historiography of War and Empire in Antiquity // I. Worthington (ed.), Alexander the Great: A Reader. London; New York, 2003. P. 121-123.

6 Tarn W. W. Alexander the Great, I-II. Cambridge, 1948. Vol. II. P. 399-499; Badian E. Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind // Historia 7. 1958. P. 425-444.

7 E.g. Bosworth A. B. Conquest and Empire: The reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge, 1988.

Alexander the Great: king of Persia

189

Alexanders history almost exclusively in Graeco-Macedonian cultural context.

Enormous interest of the modern scholarship of the recent decades in the Achaemenid Persian empire necessitates posing questions as to Alexanders approach to the Persian heritage. It is well known that upon his conquest Alexander left the Persian administrative structure basically untouched. The number of satrapies stayed more or less the same as under Darius III, although for the most part new people were appointed satraps. At one point most of them were Iranian aristocrats, sociologically speak-ing members of the same class which monopolized satrapal posts under the Achaemenids. Lower echelons of power are better known to us in the western than in the eastern part of the Achaemenid empire. Numerous autonomous statelets, Greek poleis, Phoenician and Cypriot city-states, temple states in Palestine and Asia Minor continued to exist, now allied with Alexander and supervised by his satraps. The few written sources we have do show unbroken operation of Achaemenid administration in eastern Iran8, most of which continued to be ruled by local lords one of whom was Alexanders father-in-law Oxyartes9. Also the domains of Iranian aristocrats in Asia Minor survived largely untouched well into the Hellenistic age10. The first administrative decision announced by Alexander after Granicus

8 On Aramaic administrative papyri from Afghanistan (Bactria) see: Allen L. The Persian Empire: A History. London, 2005. P. 134.

9 Wilcken U. Alexander the Great. New York, 1967. P. 162-163; Schachermeyr F. Alexander der Grosse. Das Problem seiner Persnlichkeit und seines Wirkens. Vienna, 1973. P. 355; Badian E. Alexander in Iran // I. Gershevitch (ed.), Cambridge History of Iran, II. Cambridge, 1985. P. 456; Holt F. L. Alexander the Great and Bactria: The Formation of a Greek Frontier in Central Asia. Leiden, 1988. (Mnemosyne Suppl. 104). P. 67-70; OBrien J. M. Alexander the Great. P. 140-141; Bosworth A. B. A Historical Commentary on Arrians History of Alexander, II: Commentary on Books IV-V. Oxford, 1995. P. 142-143; Hammond N. G. L. Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman3. London, 1996. P. 202; Hamilton J. R. Plutarch, in: Alexander2. Bristol, 1999. P. 129-130; Ogden D. Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties. London, 1999. P. 44; Carney E. D. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman, 2000. P. 106-107.

10 Robert J. Fouilles dAmyzon en Carie, I. Paris, 1983. P. 97-118; Debord P. LAsie Mineure au IVe sicle (412-323 a.C.). Pouvoires et jeux

Krzysztof Nawotka

190

was to retain the Persian-era level of taxation11. This implies maintaining Persian cadaster, indeed attested in Hellenistic Asia Minor. While nego-tiating the surrender of Persian cities, Sardis, Memphis, Babylon, Susa, Alexander showed knowledge of Near Eastern rules of engagement and his willingness to abide by them12. Finally, throughout his campaign in the East Alexander relied more and more on local, especially Iranian, recruits, drafted even to the elite Companion cavalry. By 323 B.C. Alexanders army was probably dominated, in numerical terms at least, by Asian troops13.

All of these proves Alexanders and his advisors good knowledge of Persian monarchy and their ability to apply Near Eastern standards in their operations in the Achaemenid empire. But since it happened during the war one may try to explain this modus operandi on purely utilitarian grounds: Alexander was aiming at total victory in the war with numerically superior enemy and the principle of economy of force alone would force upon him temporary concessions not to waste resources on secondary targets. Hence these Persian aristocrats who were willing to change sides received favour-able treatment, for a while at least.

But the ancient sources relate as well a number of episodes of ide-ological rather than purely utilitarian nature. They may provide a better grounded answer as to Alexanders objectives in Asia. The most notable are: Alexanders proclamation as King of Asia, orientalising policy pursued since Summer of 330 B.B., proskynesis episode or Focions affair.

Plutarchs, at the end of his account of the battle of Gaugamela, says: This battle being thus over, seemed to put a period to the Persian empire, and Alexander, who was now proclaimed King of Asia (basilej tj jAsaj), made magnificent sacrifices to the gods and rewarded his friends with wealth, estates, and provinces14. Reference to this event in Pompeius

politiques. Bordeaux, 1999. P. 159-160, 185; Nawotka K. Alexander the Great P. 127-128.

11 Arr., An., 1.17.1.12 Debord P. LAsie Mineure au IVe sicle (412-323 a.C.). P. 159-160, 185;

Nawotka K. 1) Freedom of Greek Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great, in: Klio 85. 2003. . 15-41; 2) Alexander the Great P. 126-127, 238-239.

13 Olbrycht M. J. Aleksander Wielki i wiat iraski. Rzeszw, 2004. Passim, in particular pp. 102-204.

14 Plut., Alex., 34.1, translated by B. Perrin, Loeb.

Alexander the Great: king of Persia

191

Trogus related by Justin and in some later sources leaves no doubt to its historicity15, especially that the usage of the title King of Asia by Alexander is attested both in literary16 and epigraphic sources, most notably by an inscription of Craterus in Delphi which is a near contemporary witness of the age of Alexander:

, , [] [] ,(O stranger, behold the bull-slaying lion, whom he killed while fol-

lowing Alexander the much-praised king of Asia)17. To that a partial cor-roboration of Plutarchs words can be found in the dedication from the temple of Athena in Lindos which reads: [] / [] (King Alexander, having defeated Darius in a battle and having become the lord of Asia). This inscription, even if cut much later than the events it records, refers in this context to an oracle dated to 331-330, thus giving the air of contempo-rary evidence18. Without any doubt Alexander was proclaimed King of Asia on the battlefield of Gaugamela and during his reign he made frequent use of this title.

I wrote about this title elsewhere19, so now I am only summarizing my line of argumentation. The primary, geographical meaning of the Greek word is continent of Asia20. But its usage went far beyond the realm of geography and the opposition between Europe as the part of the world dominated by the Greeks and Asia soon became a topos of Greek literature, amply illustrated by statements of Herodotus and later writers21.

15 Just., 11.14.6; ME 1; Oros., 3.17.4; Zonar., Epitome historiarum, 4.11. For discussion of the evidence see Nawotka K. Persia, Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Asia, in: Klio. 2012. (forthcoming).

16 Arr., An., 2.14.9, 7.1.2, 7.15.4; Plut., Ari., 11.9; Ps-Callisth., 1.35.5, 2.19.7 (rec. A); Curt., 3.3.5, 4.10.34, 8.4.29, 10.3.13.

17 FD III 4, 137.18 ILindos col. II, l. 105=FGrH 532 F1, 38, cf. Muccioli 2004, p. 114.19 Nawotka K. 1) Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Asia, Eos 91 (2004)

[2005]. . 34-43; 2) Persia, Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Asia20 LSJ s.v.; Oost 1981.21 Muccioli F. Il re dellAsia: ideologia e propaganda da Alessandro

Magno a Mitridate VI, in: Simblos 4. 2004. . 106-107; Prontera F. 1) Asa,

Krzysztof Nawotka

192

In the classical age in political sense of the word came to designate the Persian empire. Consequently the ruler of Asia (basilej/ krioj/ rcwn tj j) was to the Greeks he whom we call the Persian king22. Apart from many loci in which classical authors refer this way to the Persian king, there is a straightforward ancient definition of the Kingdom of Asia. De mundo attributed to Aristotle defines the state/ empire of Asia: Tn d smpasan rcn tj j peratoumnhn `EllhspntJ mn k tn prj spran mern, jInd d k tn prj w, dieilfesan kat qnh strathgo ka satrpai ka basilej, doloi to meglou basilwj (398a: The whole Empire of Asia, bounded by the Hellespont in the West and the Indus in the East, was devided in to nations under generals and satraps and kings, slaves of the Great King, translated by D.J. Furley, Loeb). The only exception in the classical age is Ctesias who, judging by his surviving fragments, calls jAsa the most powerful state in Asia at a given time: Assyria, Media, Persia, and naming various semi-mythological rulers of Asia: Teutames, Semiramis, Belesys, Ninos, Maudakes23. But also Ctesias, while speaking of the times after Cyrus had established the Persian Empire, exclusilvely reserves the word Asia in the political sense to the empire of the Achaemenids. In the Hellenistic usage of the title basilej tj and of the very word in political sense evolved from the original meaning but this is not the issue here24.

Hells, Sikela, Itala: note sulla geopolitica nel V sec. a.C. // GeogrAnt 18. 2009. P. 97-106; 2) LAsia nella geografia di Erodoto: uno spazio in cos-truzione // R. Rollinger, B. Truschnegg, R. Bichler (Hrsg.), Herodot und das Persische Weltreich. Herodotus and the Persian Empire. Akten des 3. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klas-sischer und altorientalischer berlieferungen Innsbruck, 24.-28. November 2008. Wiesbaden, 2011. P. 185.

22 E.g. A., Pers., 73; Lys., (II 21, II 27, II 60 and quoted in Lexicon Vindobonense, s.v. gap); X., Hel., 3.5.13, cf. Cyr., 4.5.16, Mem., 2.1.10; Isocr., 5.76, cf. 5.66, 5.2.

23 Ctes., FGrH F3c688 F1b, l. 189f, 662, 664, 685f, 867f, F1n, l. 47, F5, l. 6f, 26f, 29f 6f, 26f.

24 History of it in the Hellenistic age was recently covered in an extensive monograph of Muccioli (2004) to which little can be added.

Alexander the Great: king of Persia

193

Those Macedonians and Greeks who listened to Alexanders proclama-tion as basilej tj could not not have any doubt what was meant at Gaugamela. In the light of the normal Greek usage of the fourth c. B.C. Alexanders Kingdom of Asia was simply the Persian empire and not some artificial construct of Fredricksmeyer and Hammond allegedly superior to the Achaemenid realm, in territorial and political sense25. Basilej tj was not the most common Greek title of the Persian king; classical sources show that it was Great King corresponding to the principal Persian title xyaiya vazarka. But we know, on authority of Plutarch (Demetr. 25, 3), that Alexander never used this title, not even after the death of Darius III when he took up the powers and trappings of the Great King, although he allowed other Achaemenid-type titles to be applied in the non-European parts of his empire as Lord of Lords of all land in Egypt roughly corresponding to the Persian xyaiya xyaiynm (King of Kings)26. Nevertheless, even if he shrank at using the title Great King in preference of King of Asia, to his Greek and Macedonian audience at Gaugamela it was obvious that at that moment Alexander laid claim on legitimate powers of the king of Persia.

In Plutarchs account this proclamation opens the list of measures taken by Alexander after Gaugamela: sacrifices to the gods, wealth and com-manding posts distributed among his friends, the letter to the Greeks abol-ishing all tyrannies, rewarding Plataea and Croton for the past deeds in war

25 Fredricksmeyer E. Alexander the Great and the Kingship of Asia // A. B. Bosworth, E. J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford, 2000. P. 136-166; Hammond N. G. L. The Kingdom of Asia and the Persian Throne, in: Antichthon 20. 1986. P. 73-85. The view accepted by some scholars, e.g. Stewart A. Faces of Power: Alexanders Image and Hellenistic Politics. Berkeley, 1993. P. 90-91; Ferrill A. The Origins of War from the Stone Age to Alexander the Great2. London, 1997. P. 210; Worthington I. How Great Was Alexander the Great, in: AHB 13. 1999. P. 50; Flower M. Alexander the Great and Panhellenism // A. B. Bosworth, E. J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford, 2000. P. 131-132; Cartledge P. Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past. London, 2004. P. 122-124, 173-174.

26 Blbaum A.I. Denn ich bin ein Knig, der die Maat liebt: Herrscherlegitimation im sptzeitlichen gypten; eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Phraseologie in den offiziellen Knigsinschriften vom Beginn der 25. Dynastie bis zum Ende der makedonischen Herrschaft. Mnster, 2006. P. 50-51.

Krzysztof Nawotka

194

with Persia. To this we may add the dedication to Athena of Lindos attested in the Lindian Chronicle. Hence all post-Gaugamela measures should be understood primarily as setting scores with Persia, crowning the chain of events started at the Hellespont, continued in the liberation of Greeks of Asia and in propaganda war with Darius, a part of which was Alexanders taking claim on basilea tj jAsaj in his letter to Darius after Issus. Through these steps Alexander presented himself as the vigorous leader of the League of Corinth who implemented the aims of the war of revenge and conquest set in motion through the pronouncements and gestures at the crossing of the Hellespont in the Spring of 33427. Taking over the spoils, i.e. the reigns of the Kingdom of Asia, was the most legitimate thing to do for the victor in the battle which had broken the enemys strength for good. The proclamation at Gaugamela can be seen as the crowning moment of the war of revenge.

This policy shifted by Summer 330 B.C. when Alexander, while in Hyrcania, is recorded to have established a Persian court with Iranian guards and started wearing Persian royal costume. Although the extent to which Alexander adopted the royal Persian attire and on which occasion he sported it is a matter of dispute28, the ideological meaning of this step is quite obvious: Alexander was to trying to strengthen his legitimacy as king of Persia by adhering in public to cherished royal Iranian ways of behaviour. This so-called Alexanders orientalising policy came to its logical end some three years later in Bactria. By that time, after the death of Darius III and of the failed Achaemenid claimant to power Bessus (Artaxerxes V) and upon pacifying Bactria and Sogdiana, Alexanders position as the ruler of Iran

27 Wilcken U. Alexander the Great. New York, 1967. P. 137-139; Muccioli F. Il re dellAsia: ideologia e propaganda da Alessandro Magno a Mitridate VI // Simblos 4. 2004. . 113-114; Demandt A. Alexander der Grosse. Leben und Legend. Munich, 2009. P. 196.

28 Phylarch., ap. Ath., 12.55 (= FGrH, 81 F41); Chares, ap. Ath., (= FGrH, 125 F1); Duris ap. Ath., 12.50; Arr., An., 4.7.4 and FGrH, 156 F1.3; Diod., 17.77.4-7, 18.48.5; Liv., 9.19.1-5; Curt., 6.6, 7.5.40; Plut., Alex., 51.1-2; Plut., mor., 329f-330e; Polyaen, 4.3.24; Ael., VH, 9.3; Just., 12.4.8; Luc., DMort., 12.4; ME, 1-2. On controversies surrounding Alexanders Persian dress see Nawotka K. Plutarch, O szczciu czy dzielnoci Aleksandra, przekad i opraco-wanie Wrocaw, 2003. P. 100-101.

Alexander the Great: king of Persia

195

was unchallenged. A steady stream of Iranian aristocrats to the new King of Asia made Alexanders court overwhelmingly Persian yet sharply divided along cultural lines between Orientals and Europeans29. But Alexander could not be Great King to some and merely the first among equals to the others for long. The only recorded attempt to impose a cultural and ideo-logical unification culminated in the celebrated and much discussed affair of proskynesis30. Throughout the Near East this ceremonial bow was the universally accepted way of paying respects to the majesty of the monarch. Unfortunately in the Greek world such gestures were reserved for the cults of deities31. The decision to impose proskynesis on all, even in a modified form, ran against Greek and Macedonian sensitivities and amounted to a fundamental ideological declaration that, if faced with choice, Alexander wanted to be Great King rather than hegemon of his Greek and Macedonian peers. The ultimate failure of this policy was due as much to the passive resistance of the philosopher and historian Callisthenes as to Alexanders dependence on his European troops and advisors unwilling to accept their kings Persian ideological leaning32.

Alexanders self-perception in the last years of his rule is illustrated perhaps better by a little episode involving an Athenian politician Phocion

29 Spawforth A. J. S. The court of Alexander the Great between Europe and Asia // A. J. S. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies, Cambridge, 2007. P. 82-120.

30 From among a vast modern literature see in particular: Frye R. N. Gestures of Deference to Royalty in Ancient Iran, in: IA 4. 1972. P. 36-54; Schachermeyr F. Alexander der Grosse. Das Problem seiner Persnlichkeit und seines Wirkens. Vienna, 1973. P. 373-374; Lane Fox R. Alexander the Great. London, 1973. P. 320-322; Bosworth A. B. 1) Conquest and Empire: The reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge, 1988. P. 284-285; 2) Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph. Oxford, 1996. P. 110-112; Briant P. Histoire de lEmpire perse. De Cyrus Alexandre. Paris, 1996. P. 234-235; Chosky J. K. In Reverence for Deities and Submission to Kings: A Few Gestures in Ancient Near Eastern Societies // IA 37. 2002. P. 7-29; Spawforth A. J. S. The court of Alexander the Great between Europe and Asia; Nawotka K. Alexander the Great P. 288-290.

31 Chosky J. K. In Reverence for Deities and Submission to Kings32 Arr., An., 4.10.5-12.2; Curt., 8.5.9-24; Just., 12.7. Bosworth A. B.

Alexander and the East P. 110-112.

Krzysztof Nawotka

196

than by major policy steps. Phocion, one of the closest Greek friends of Philip II and Alexander, was offered twice magnificent gifts by the king: one hundred talents and a choice of a city in Asia Minor from among Kios, Gergithos, Mylasa, Elaia33. Phocion, always very careful to build his political reputation on being poor qua uncorrupted politician, was adamant in refusing royal gift, provoking Alexanders angry words that he could not regard as his friends those who wanted nothing of him34. The story of a city offered to a democratic Greek politician, although on the first glance bizarre, is basically true and took place probably in 324 B.C.35, especially that what was offered to Phocion was not sovereign rule in a city but income derived from it36. Since none of the cities listed in this episode belongs to the category of Greek cities of Asia liberated by Alexander in 334 B.C., they were his spoils taken from Darius III and Alexander was free to make use of the tribute derived from them in whatever way he wanted. There are no classical age Greek and no sure Macedonian examples of granting a city to a private person, while this way of grant giving is very well attested in the Persian empire from Cyrus the Great to Darius III with Themistocles being the best known Greek beneficiary of this tage system37. Alexanders adopting in this episode the ways of the Achaemenids is even more obvious when one looks at his angry reaction to Phocions rejection of his gifts. It was the Great Kings decision to give a gift which could not be declined by

33 Plut., Phoc., 17-18; also Ael., VH., 1.25, 11.9; Stob., 3.37.36; Chor., 33.1.4.

34 Plut., Phoc., 18.6, also Plut., Alex., 39.4.35 Date: Corsten T. Zum Angebot einer Schenkung Alexanders an

Phokion // Historia 48. 1994. P. 117-118. Discussion of veracity of the story: Nawotka K. Alexander the Great and Greek Elite: The Case of Phocion // K. Nawotka, A. o (eds.), Elite in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Wrocaw, 2005 [2006]. (Antiquitas AUWr 28). . 7-12.

36 Ael., VH., 1.25. Corsten T. Zum Angebot einer Schenkung Alexanders an Phokion... P. 113-114; Debord P. LAsie Mineure au IVe sicle (412-323 a.C.). Pouvoires et jeux politiques. Bordeaux, 1999. P. 447.

37 For reference to sources and secondary literature see Nawotka K. Alexander the Great and Greek Elite...

Alexander the Great: king of Persia

197

any of his subjects38 and Alexander clearly did not like the idea that there might be any person free not to accept his generosity.

All these episodes show both the good, if limited knowledge of Alexander and his advisors of customs and habits of the Achaemenid Persian empire and the evolution of his policy and underlying self-perception. At the ideological level, at Gaugamela he is still the leader of the united Greek war of revenge who takes over the Kingdom of Asia by virtue of winning a pitched battle with the previous Great King. In 330 B.C. in Hyrcania and in 327 B.C. in Bactria Alexander acts as King of the Persian empire by adopting Persian dress, encouraging his companions to do the same and trying to unify his court in the Near Eastern ceremony of proskynesis. By 324 B.C. even the most respected Greek politician Phocion is expected to come to terms with the fact that there is no longer a hegemon of free Greek states but only the Great King ruling over his subjects in Asia and Europe alike. For all his military triumphs over the Persian empire, Alexander was progressively more and more willing to become both in substance and appearance the legitimate successor of the defeated Darius III, becoming in effect the last of the Achaemenids39.

Allen L. The Persian Empire: A History. London, 2005.Austin M. Alexander and the Macedonian Invasion of Asia: Aspects of the

Historiography of War and Empire in Antiquity, in: I. Worthington (ed.), Alexander the Great: A Reader. London; New York, 2003. P. 118-135.

Badian E. Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind, in: Historia 7. 1958. P. 425-444.

Badian E. Alexander in Iran, in: I. Gershevitch (ed.), Cambridge History of Iran, II. Cambridge, 1985. P. 420-501.

Blbaum A. I. Denn ich bin ein Knig, der die Maat liebt: Herrscherlegitimation im sptzeitlichen gypten; eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Phraseologie in den offi-ziellen Knigsinschriften vom Beginn der 25. Dynastie bis zum Ende der makedonis-chen Herrschaft. Mnster, 2006.

Bosworth A. B. Conquest and Empire: The reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge, 1988.

Bosworth A. B. A Historical Commentary on Arrians History of Alexander, II: Commentary on Books IV-V. Oxford, 1995.

Bosworth A. B. Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph. Oxford, 1996.

38 Briant P. Histoire de lEmpire perse P. 327-330, 431.39 Briant P. Histoire de lEmpire perse... P. 126.

Krzysztof Nawotka

198

Briant P. Histoire de lEmpire perse. De Cyrus Alexandre. Paris, 1996.Briant P. Alexandre le Grand5. Paris, 2002.Brunt P. A. The Aims of Alexander, in: G&R 12, 1965. P. 205-215.Carney E. D. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman, 2000.Cartledge P. Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past. London, 2004.Chosky J. K. In Reverence for Deities and Submission to Kings: A Few Gestures in

Ancient Near Eastern Societies, in: IA 37. 2002. P. 7-29.Corsten T. Zum Angebot einer Schenkung Alexanders an Phokion, in: Historia 48.

1994. P. 112-118.Debord P. LAsie Mineure au IVe sicle (412-323 a.C.). Pouvoires et jeux politiques.

Bordeaux, 1999.Demandt A. Alexander der Grosse. Leben und Legend. Munich, 2009.Ehrenberg V. Alexander and the Greeks, Oxford, 1938.Ferrill A. The Origins of War from the Stone Age to Alexander the Great2. London,

1997.Flower M. Alexander the Great and Panhellenism, in: A. B. Bosworth, E. J. Baynham

(eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford, 2000. P. 96-135.Fredricksmeyer E. Alexander the Great and the Kingship of Asia, in: A. B. Bosworth,

E. J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford, 2000. P. 136-166.Frye R. N. Gestures of Deference to Royalty in Ancient Iran, in: IA 4. 1972. P. 36-54.Goukowsky P. Alexandre et la conqute de lOrient (336-323), in: E. Will (ed.), Le

monde grec et lOrient, II Le IVe sicle et lpoque hellnistique. Paris, 1975. P. 247-333.Hamilton J. R. Plutarch, in: Alexander2. Bristol, 1999.Hammond N. G. L. The Kingdom of Asia and the Persian Throne, in: Antichthon 20.

1986. P. 73-85.Hammond N. G. L. Alexander the Great: King, Commander and Statesman3. London,

1996.Holt F. L. Alexander the Great and Bactria: The Formation of a Greek Frontier in Central

Asia. Leiden, 1988. (Mnemosyne Suppl. 104).Lane Fox R. Alexander the Great. London, 1973.Muccioli F. Il re dellAsia: ideologia e propaganda da Alessandro Magno a

Mitridate VI, in: Simblos 4. 2004. . 105-158.Nawotka K. Freedom of Greek Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great,

in: Klio 85. 2003. . 15-41.Nawotka K. Plutarch, O szczciu czy dzielnoci Aleksandra, przekad i opracowanie ,

Wrocaw, 2003.Nawotka K. Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Asia, Eos 91 (2004) [2005].

. 34-43.Nawotka K. Alexander the Great and Greek Elite: The Case of Phocion, in: K. Nawotka,

A. o (eds.), Elite in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Wrocaw, 2005 [2006]. (Antiquitas AUWr 28). . 7-12.

Nawotka K. Alexander the Great, Newcastle upon Tyne. 2010.Nawotka K. Persia, Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Asia, in: Klio. 2012.

(forthcoming).OBrien J. M. Alexander the Great: The Invisible Enemy. London, 1992.Ogden D. Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The HellenisticDynasties. London, 1999.

Alexander the Great: king of Persia

199

N

Olbrycht M. J. Aleksander Wielki i wiat iraski. Rzeszw, 2004.Oost S. I. The Alexander Historians and Asia, in: A. J. Dell (ed.), Ancient Macedonian

Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson. Thessaloniki, 1981. . 265-282.Prontera F. Asa, Hells, Sikela, Itala: note sulla geopolitica nel V sec. a.C., in:

GeogrAnt 18. 2009. P. 97-106.Prontera F. LAsia nella geografia di Erodoto: uno spazio in costruzione, in: R. Rollinger,

B. Truschnegg, R. Bichler (Hrsg.), Herodot und das Persische Weltreich. Herodotus and the Persian Empire. Akten des 3. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer berlieferungen Innsbruck, 24.-28. November 2008. Wiesbaden, 2011. P. 179-195.

Robert J. Fouilles dAmyzon en Carie, I. Paris, 1983.Schachermeyr F. Alexander der Grosse. Das Problem seiner Persnlichkeit und seines

Wirkens. Vienna, 1973.Seibert J. Panhellenischer Kreuzzug, Nationalkrieg, Rachefeldzug oder makedo-

nischer Eroberungskrieg? berlegungen zu den Ursachen des Krieges gegen Persien, in: W. Will (Hrsg.), Alexander der Grosse: Eine Welteroberung und ihr Hintergrung: Vortrge des Internationalen Bonner Alexanderkolloquiums, 19.-21.12.1996. Bonn, 1998. P. 5-58.

Spawforth A. J. S. The court of Alexander the Great between Europe and Asia, in: A. J. S. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies, Cambridge, 2007. P. 82-120.

Stewart A. Faces of Power: Alexanders Image and Hellenistic Politics. Berkeley, 1993.Tarn W. W. Alexander the Great, I-II. Cambridge, 1948.Wilcken U. Alexander the Great. New York, 1967.Worthington I. How Great Was Alexander the Great, in: AHB 13. 1999. P. 39-55.