Six Polybian Themes Concerning Alexander the Great

Six Polybian Themes Concerning Alexander the Great

Nikolaus Overtoom

Classical World, Volume 106, Number 4, Summer 2013, pp. 571-593 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/clw.2013.0094

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Queen's University Library (26 Sep 2013 13:07 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/clw/summary/v106/106.4.overtoom.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/clw/summary/v106/106.4.overtoom.html

Classical World, vol. 106, no. 4 (2013) Pp.571–593

Six Polybian Themes Concerning Alexander the Great

Nikolaus Overtoom

ABSTRACT: This study discusses the image of Alexander the Great created by Polybius and reinvestigates the Polybian themes con-cerning the Macedonian. Richard Billows suggested that there are fi ve Polybian themes found in his analysis of Alexander. Yet our current assumptions about the scope of Polybius’ portrayal and his own conclusions require reconsideration. In fact, Polybius’ favor-able comparison of Rome’s accomplishments to those of Alexander emerges as a possible sixth theme. This article examines these six Polybian themes, while demonstrating that Polybius does not dis-associate his text completely from an apologetic tone and offers a generally positive opinion of Alexander the Great.

I. Introduction

This study will discuss the image of Alexander the Great created by Polybius of Megalopolis, the second-century B.C.E. historian, and will reinvestigate the Polybian themes concerning the great king. Polybius’ history is our earliest extant source that features an analysis of Alexan-der.1 Yet Polybius’ treatment of the Macedonian king has gone relatively unexamined.2 Other than a study by Richard Billows, which involves a brief analysis of Polybius’ thoughts and arguments on Alexander, there has been no comprehensive study of Polybius’ depiction of the great

1 R. Billows, “Polybius and Alexander Historiography,” in A. B. Bosworth and E. J. Baynham, eds., Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (New York 2000) 288.

2 Only Billows (above, n.1) 289, and to a lesser extent, R. M. Errington (“Alexander in the Hellenistic World,” in Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt [Geneva 1976] 174–79) have seriously addressed Polybius’ depiction of Alexander. For a concise, yet extensive, study on Alexander scholarship, see E. M. Anson, “Alexander the Great in Current Schol-arship,” History Compass 7, no. 3 (2009) 981–92.

572 Classical World

Macedonian.3 Billows, in his pioneering study, suggested that there are fi ve Polybian themes found in his analysis of Alexander: Alexander’s de-struction of Thebes, his comparison with other kings, his character and generalship, the allocation of praise under his leadership, and the rela-tionship between Alexander and Fortune.4 Yet our current assumptions about the scope of Polybius’ portrayal and his own conclusions require reconsideration. In fact, we fi nd an additional theme in the Polybian ma-terial: Polybius’ favorable comparison of the accomplishments of Rome to those of Alexander the Great and his Macedonians. He establishes Rome as Alexander’s true successor, as hegemon of the world, and he judges that as great as Alexander was, the extent of Rome’s hegemony and the manner in which it achieved this glory was even greater.

Unlike the apologetic or adulatory tone found in many of the ac-counts of the traditional Alexander historians, Polybius—as Billows has pointed out—sometimes depicted Alexander in a less fl attering manner. What emerges from Polybius’ portrayal is a more balanced depiction of Alexander, where the Macedonian king was capable of both positive and negative actions. Nevertheless, this balanced depiction should not come as a surprise. Polybius himself tells us that, in his estimation, the human personality is complex.5 He believed strongly that great men deserved both praise and blame.6 For Polybius, Alexander became a prime exam-ple of what to do and what not to do.7 The military vigor and the vast

3 Billows’ (above, n.1) dominant agenda is source criticism, although his discussion of the fi ve Polybian themes is central to his article. His portrayal of the Alexander passages found in Polybius’ work, though shown to be more balanced and less apologetic than those found in the works of many of the traditional Alexander historians, is primarily negative in tone.

4 Billows (above, n.1) 289.5 Polyb. 4.8.7–8.6 Polyb. 4.8.7–12. See A. M. Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius

(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995) 239. Note also F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commen-tary on Polybius, Vol. 1, Commentary on Books I–VI (London 1957) 457.

7 See S. P. Oakley, A Commentary on Livy, Books VI–X: Volume III: Book IX (New York 2005) 188. It must be stated that nearly all the passages herein discussed focus primarily on other subjects or persons and mention Alexander only in passing. The vast majority of “Alexander” passages found in Polybius’ work are of a subsidiary nature. Al-exander was not a focus or main character in Polybius’ history. He was a side interest and a valuable example to be utilized where applicable. One must always keep in mind that Polybius’ Alexander examples exist to enhance his primary objective in various passages and are not meant to stand alone. Yet in order to discuss and evaluate Polybius’ opinion of Alexander, one must emphasize his use of Alexander and, while also keeping them in perspective, isolate our few examples.

Overtoom | Six Polybian Themes 573

accomplishments of Alexander were something to emulate and respect. Yet, for Polybius, the misdeeds of Alexander also were important.

Thus, Polybius’ balanced account of Alexander is in line with his general philosophy about the actions of great men. However, if Polybius’ account offers both positive and negative elements, we cannot argue that he held a generally negative opinion of Alexander. Although he assigns some criticism to Alexander, Polybius’ general opinion of the Macedo-nian king is positive. Examining the nuances of Polybius’ opinion of Alexander is fundamental to this.

Billows has argued that Polybius offers a more balanced account of the Macedonian king than the traditional Alexander historians, which also lacks any trace of the usual Alexander apologetics, and, in fact, often presents Alexander in negative terms.8 This paper will argue that, if we reconsider the Polybian material concerning Alexander not only does an additional theme emerge, but we see also that Polybius’ depiction of Al-exander, although it contains both praise and criticism, is fl attering over-all. Polybius does not disassociate his text completely from an apologetic tone and offers a generally positive opinion of Alexander the Great.

II. Examples of Polybius’ Positive Opinion of Alexander

In order to appreciate fully Polybius’ “balanced” portrayal of Alexan-der, one must determine Polybius’ overall opinion of the great king. Whether Polybius primarily leaned one way or the other is fundamen-tal to our understanding of his use of Alexander in his work. It will infl uence how we should interpret the six Polybian themes. Let us un-derline briefl y four examples [3.59; 5.10.6–11; 8.10; 12.23] that help demonstrate Polybius’ positive opinion of Alexander the Great. In these passages, Polybius reveres Alexander and shows respect for his accom-plishments. Polybius’ support of Alexander and his Macedonian com-panions is often both strong and passionate.

For Polybius, the benefi ts of Alexander’s accomplishments were apparent in his own generation. In one example (3.59.1–2), he men-tions the diffi culties faced by earlier writers because of the previous lack of free movement between Greece and much of the rest of the ancient

8 For Billows (above, n.1) 288–96, each of the fi ve original themes contains a con-siderably negative judgment by Polybius.

574 Classical World

world. This in turn limited the scope and accuracy of Greek history writ-ings. He then explains how the conquests of Alexander and Rome have given all writers, including himself, the ability to produce a more factual, more knowledgeable account of the past.9 Polybius traversed many of the lands he discusses in his work, and recognizes that without Alexan-der this feat would not have been easily achievable in the East.10

Polybius had a deep respect for the piety of Alexander. In book 5, he praises Alexander’s reverence toward the gods and lauds his sparing of the temples of Thebes.11 Moreover, he condemns Philip V’s destruction of the holy sites at Thermus and chastises his inability to live up to the examples set forth by Alexander.12 For Polybius, because Philip failed to emulate Alexander, he gained a poor reputation that was the opposite of his great ancestor.13

In book 8, Polybius defends Philip II, Alexander, and their Mace-donian companions from what he considered the vicious attacks of the historian Theopompus.14 Polybius here takes a strong, pro-Macedonian stance, so much so that he is guilty of his own inaccurate and idealized portrayal.15 Praise of the Macedonians of Philip’s and Alexander’s time

9 Polybius states, “We ought to be able to arrive at a better knowledge and something more like the truth about lands which were formerly little known. This is what I myself will attempt to do when I fi nd a suitable place in this work for introducing the subject. . . .” (3.59.3–6) This and all subsequent translation is by W. R. Paton, tr., Polybius: The Histo-ries, 2nd ed., rev. by F. W. Walbank and C. Habicht (Cambridge, Mass., 2009–2012) unless otherwise indicated.

10 Polyb. 3.59.7–8. Ironically, Polybius never took up the opportunity to see much of the Asian lands conquered by Alexander. See Walbank (above, n.6) 395.

11 Polyb. 5.10.6–8.12 Polyb. 5.10.9–10. Polybius underlines Philip II’s example as well. See also Wal-

bank (above, n.6) 548–49.13 Polyb. 5.10.11. It should be stated that Polybius’ primary goal is to condemn

Philip V in this passage. The praise of Alexander is secondary and serves to help intensify Polybius’ disapproval of Philip’s actions.

14 Polyb. 8.10. To be clear, Theopompus does not directly attack Alexander. In fact, there is reason to believe that Theopompus was Alexander’s agent in Chios. See M. A. Flowers, Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century BC (New York 1997) 23–25. Yet Polybius makes it a point to defend Alexander along with Philip II and the companions. To be fair, Polybius’ primary goal is to criticize Theopompus and defend the important role of the royal companions; the praise that Polybius offers to Alexander is brief and subsidiary. However, the fact that Polybius made it a point to defend Alexander when it was unnecessary is in itself important. Additionally, emphasis on the positive as-pects of this passage displays the need to reexamine Billows’ interpretation.

15 Polybius claims, “And after possessing themselves [Alexander’s companions] of vast wealth and unbounded resources for satisfying every desire, [they] neither suffered


was not universal in Greece; the arguments of Demosthenes, Theopom-pus, and Chlaeneas demonstrate this, just to name a few.16 However, Polybius made it a point to defend these two kings and their charac-ters against the attacks of previous historians.17 He states his principle clearly: “My own opinion is that we should neither revile nor extol kings falsely, as has so often been done, but always give an account of them consistent with our previous statements and in accord with the character of each.”18 Polybius labels Theopompus as a writer who failed in this standard arguing, “In this respect Theopompus is one of the writers who is most to blame.”19 Polybius criticizes Theopompus’ inconsistencies and his extravagance as a historian, concerning his depiction of Philip II and the Macedonians.20 Theopompus’ passage portrays Philip as a sex addict, wicked, ruthless, untrustworthy, and as a drunk, while also describing his Macedonian court as a den of debauchery and disgraceful actions.21 Polybius remarks in stark opposition to Theopompus, “All of them, one may say, proved themselves indeed to be kingly men by virtue of their magnanimity, self-restraint, and courage, as long as they lived with Philip and afterwards with Alexander.”22 Even though Theopompus is primarily discussing Philip II in book 8, Polybius made it a point to defend those associated with Alexander as well.

For Polybius, a man could not act in the manner in which Theopom-pus describes Philip and achieve great things. Since Alexander, like Philip, achieved great things, Polybius is set to view him positively on just principles. For Polybius, his ideology in book 8 triumphs over known details, based on the crucial fact of Alexander’s huge achievements.

in a single case any impairment of their physical powers, nor even to gratify their passion were guilty of malpractices and licentiousness” (8.10.9–10).

16 See Dem. First Philippic, Second Philippic, and Third Philippic; and Polyb. 8.10 and 9.28–39.

17 Although generally suspicious of kingship for structural reasons, Polybius believed that there could be good individual kings. For Polybius’ depiction of Philip II and Alex-ander in this role, see K. Welwei, Könige und Königtum im Urteil des Polybios (Cologne 1963) 22–30.

18 Polyb. 8.8.7.19 Polyb. 8.9.1. Flowers (above, n.14) 98–104, argues that Polybius is misled and

unfair in his criticism.20 Polyb. 8.9.1–5. For more on Polybius’ criticism of Theopompus, see F. W. Wal-

bank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Vol. 2, Commentary on Books VII–XVIII (London 1967) 85–87.

21 Polyb. 8.9.6–13.22 Polyb. 8.10.10.

576 Classical World

Polybius further reveals his positive opinion in his discussion of Callisthenes and Timaeus. In book 12, he praises Callisthenes, who lauded Alexander, stating, “Callisthenes praised a man [Alexander] whose spirit, by common consent, had in it something superhuman.”23 Polybius then argues that Timaeus deserved a far worse fate than Cal-listhenes, since Timaeus wished to deify Timoleon, a relatively insignif-icant ruler of Syracuse, while Callisthenes had championed a far more worthy Alexander.24 Polybius, who did not ordinarily advocate a divine presence in humans, here argues that Alexander simply was greater than normal men.25

When Polybius attacks Timaeus for offering unworthy praise to Timoleon, he also goes on to refer to Alexander as one of “the most illus-trious heroes” (τοῖς ἐπιφανεστάτοις τῶν ἡρώων).26 Such statements attest to the general admiration and respect felt by Polybius for Alexander. Let us now turn to the six Polybian themes concerning Alexander the Great.

III. Theme I: Alexander’s Destruction of Thebes

The strongest evidence for Polybian criticism of Alexander involves Polybius’ discussion of the sack of the city of Thebes. In book 38, Poly-bius refers to Alexander’s sack of Thebes as “unjust and terrible” (ἄδικα καὶ δεινὰ).27 Polybius’ criticism conforms to the conventional Greek re-sentment toward Alexander over the sack of Thebes, resentment still

23 Polyb. 12.23.5. I. Scott-Kilvert, tr., Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Republic (New York 1979) 437. Again, one must keep in mind that the primary purpose of this passage is to criticize Timaeus. Polybius’ praise of Alexander remains cursory.

24 Polyb. 12.23.3–6. Callisthenes was arrested and possibly tortured to death after he was implicated in a failed assassination attempt upon Alexander. Polybius admits that Cal-listhenes deserved this punishment. See Arr. Anab. 4.14; Curt. 8.8; Plut. Alex. 55.7. There is some disagreement and uncertainty surrounding Callisthenes’ death. See especially A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, Vol. 2 (New York 1995) 100; J. R. Hamilton, Plutarch: Alexander, a Commentary (New York 1969) 153–57; J. C. Yardley and W. Heckel, Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Books 11-12: Alexander the Great (New York 1997) 229–30.

25 In his discussion of Lycurgus and Scipio Africanus, Polybius heavily emphasizes the use of calculated action over divine aid. See Polyb. 10.2. Note also Walbank (above, n.20) 195–96.

26 Polyb. 12.23.7. For more on Polybius’ opinion of Timaeus, see Walbank (above, n.20) 377–79.

27 Polyb. 38.2.14.


present when Polybius was writing.28 Yet the remaining examples for this theme are not critical.

First, although Polybius in book 38 condemns Alexander’s sack of the city of Thebes, as we discussed briefl y above, in book 5 he does praise Alexander’s piety and his sparing of the Theban temples.29 Fur-ther, in book 5 Polybius records Philip V’s capture of the Aetolian city of Thermus.30 In retaliation for the Aetolian destruction of the holy sites of Dium and Dodana, Philip looted and sacked the holy places of Thermus. His actions horrifi ed Polybius, who by comparison highlighted Alexan-der’s correct treatment both of Thebes and of the Persians:

And take Alexander. Though so indignant with the Thebans that he razed the city to the ground, yet he was so far from neglecting the reverence due to the gods when he captured the city, that he took the most anxious care that not even any unintentional offense should be committed against the temples and holy places in general. Even when he crossed to Asia to chastise the Persians for the outrages they had perpetrated against the Greeks, he strove to exact the punishment from men that their deeds deserved, but refrained from injuring anything consecrated to the gods, although it was in this respect that the Per-sians had offended most while in Greece.31

Polybius praises Alexander’s piety and respect for sacred sites. The text also characterizes Alexander as a righteous leader, punishing those who deserved punishment and sparing that which was sacred to the gods. Polybius voices complete agreement with this policy.

Polybius clearly praises Alexander’s piety in the face of the betrayal of the Thebans and the crimes of the Persians. As mentioned above briefl y, the passage goes on to depict Philip V as unworthy of his Mace-donian predecessors for not following their examples:

With these examples constantly present to his mind Philip should now have shown himself to be the true heir and successor of those princes [Philip II, Alexander, and Antigonus III], not inheriting so much their

28 For Greek resentment of Alexander over the sack of Thebes, see P. Green, Alexan-der of Macedon, 356–323 B.C. A Historical Biography (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1992) 151; I. Worthington, “Alexander’s Destruction of Thebes,” in W. Heckel and L. A. Tritle, eds., Crossroads of History: The Age of Alexander (Claremont, Calif., 2003) 65–69.

29 Polyb. 38.2, 5.10.6–8.30 Polyb. 5.8–11.31 Polyb. 5.10.6–8.

578 Classical World

kingdom as their high principles and magnanimity. But, instead of this, though all through his life he was at great pains to prove that he was allied in blood to Alexander and Philip, he was not in the least anxious to show himself their emulator. Therefore since his practices were the reverse of theirs, as he advanced in years his general reputation came to be also the reverse.32

Thus, Philip V failed morally on this issue where Alexander, with his “high principles and magnanimity,” did not. Here Polybius does not por-tray Alexander’s sack of Thebes as an evil or cruel action, like Philip V’s sack of Thermus. Alexander’s sparing of the Theban temples, in Poly-bius’ opinion, was a praiseworthy aspect of Alexander’s sack of Thebes. Even if Polybius separated his judgments on Alexander’s actions against the temples of Thebes and those against Thebes itself, eliminating any contradiction on his part, he still provides an opinion of Alexander’s sack of Thebes that contains both severe criticism but also praise at Al-exander’s restraint toward temples.

Billows argues that Polybius’ accounts of Alexander’s sack of Thebes lack the apologetic tone of the accounts of Plutarch, Diodorus, or Arri-an.33 He maintains that Polybius does not use “the perfect occasion” to defend Alexander in Lyciscus’ speech about the Macedonian record in southern Greece.34 Thus, for Billows, Polybius saw the sack of Thebes as “simply an unjustifi able atrocity.”35 Contrary to this position, however, Polybius in fact does have Lyciscus defend Alexander’s sacking of The-bes in book 9. Lyciscus states:

Again, you have bitterly reproached Alexander for punishing Thebes when he believed that city had wronged him (ἀδικεῖσθαι δόξας τὴν Θηβαίων πόλιν ἐκόλασε), but you never mentioned how he infl icted punishment on the Persians for their outrages on all the Greeks, and how he delivered us all from the greatest evils by enslaving the barbar-ians and depriving them of the resources they used for the destruction of the Greeks. . . . 36

32 Polyb. 5.10.9–11 (above, n.13).33 Billows (above, n.1) 290.34 Billows (above, n.1).35 Billows (above, n.1).36 Billows (above, n.1) and Polyb. 9.34.1–3. Note also Walbank (above, n.20) 173.

Worthington (above, n.28) 69–86, argues that the Theban revolt was a serious danger to his kingship and required a drastic response from Alexander.


Thus, there is not a “complete absence of the apologetic tone of the ‘Al-exander historians’” in Polybius’ depiction of Alexander.37

Polybius’ presentation of Alexander in Lyciscus’ speech is not dispar-aging. The tone is one of understanding, since Alexander was punishing those whom he thought had wronged him. This is the same apologetic defense offered to Alexander by Plutarch, Diodorus, and Arrian.38 In ad-dition, Lyciscus’ speech minimizes the negative act of sacking Thebes by listing the numerous benefi ts that Alexander provided for Greece by his conquest of the Persians.39 It is true that Lyciscus does not directly justify Alexander’s sack of Thebes; that would require the removal of δόξας. However, the argument provided by Polybius to Lyciscus in this speech follows the line of reasoning that Alexander’s benefi ts to Greece far outweighed the destruction of Thebes. Polybius sympathized with the opinion of Lyciscus, as we shall now discuss.

It is signifi cant that Polybius recorded Lyciscus’ speech, which is twice as long, in the dominant position of a rebuttal to the argument of Chlae-neas, who attacks the Macedonians for their oppression of Greece since the reign of Philip II.40 It is likewise signifi cant that Chlaeneas was an Ae-tolian, since the Aetolians were the bitter rivals of Polybius’ Achaeans. In fact, Chlaeneas’ speech advocates war against the Achaeans!41 It is notable also that Lyciscus defends Antigonus III, whom Aratus, a hero in Polybius’ work, came to support. Additionally, it is important that Polybius chose even to include Lyciscus’ defense of Alexander; he did not have to do so.

There is a strong case to be made that Polybius sympathized with the argument that he placed in Lyciscus’ mouth over that of Chlaeneas. Ultimately, the Spartans rejected Lyciscus’ speech and followed the Aeto-lians and Romans into war with the Achaeans and Macedonians. Given that outcome, Polybius’ decision to assign Lyciscus a longer speech and the rebuttal is signifi cant.42

37 Billows (above, n.1) 290.38 See Plut., Alex. 11.4; Diod. 17.9.4; Arr., Anab. 1.7.7–11.39 Polyb. 9.34.1–3. Although, the haste in which Lyciscus moves from Thebes to

the greater benefi ts Alexander had produced by capturing Asia might show some unease about the subject.

40 Polyb. 9.28–30. For more on Chlaeneas’ speech, Walbank (above, n.20) 162–69, sees the comparative lengths of the speeches as signifi cant for Polybius’ sympathies.

41 Polyb. 9.30.6. 42 Perhaps Polybius here operates within a rigid rhetorical construct, where 9.28

and 9.34 are rhetorical arguments representing the respective speakers’ views and subject to a formulaic rhetorical composition. If one places complete emphasis on a rhetorical

580 Classical World

The three Alexander passages on the sack of Thebes clearly demon-strate Polybius’ “balanced” account of Alexander, although how it is balanced is an item of debate. In book 38, Polybius makes it clear that he disapproved of Alexander’s actions against the city.43 He does not directly participate in the apologetics of the traditional Alexander histo-rians. Yet Polybius was not dismissive of Alexander’s feelings of betrayal toward Thebes; through Lyciscus’ speech, he implies that some thought Alexander’s actions defensible. In book 9, we must recognize that the apologetic tone, although indirect, is present.44 Additionally, Polybius praised Alexander’s restraint in saving the Theban temples in book 5.45

IV. Theme II: The Comparison of Alexander with Other Kings

In this theme, we fi nd four potential examples (4.23.8–9; 5.10.6–9; 5.55.9–10; 18.3.2–5). Billows argues that in two of these examples the contemporary kings come out ahead of Alexander, which for him demonstrates a separation of Polybius from the standard adulatory view of the great king held by the traditional Alexander historians.46 However, Polybius in fact shares this adulatory view and does not openly criticize Alexander in this second theme.

Polybius offers us two passages where the example of Alexander is portrayed as superior (5.10.6–9; 18.3.2–5).47 Again, in book 5 Polybius criticizes Philip V’s failure to follow Alexander’s pious example in sparing

explanation, then Lyciscus had to defend Alexander from the criticism of Chlaeneas, and Polybius’ opinion is indiscernible. That there is a rhetorical framework within which Poly-bius is working is undeniable. However, it is unnecessary to view Polybius as completely devoted to formulaic rhetorical composition. In fact, although he did not always come up to the standards he set, Polybius condemned set rhetorical compositions. Walbank (above, n.6) 13–14, considers these speeches to be based on genuine record but views their pre-sentation as signifi cant for Polybius’ sympathies. As discussed above, it is possible to glean Polybius’ general opinion from the speeches. His critical remarks in book 38 and his sup-port of Lyciscus’ defense of Alexander are not mutually exclusive. Polybius’ inclusion and shaping of Lyciscus’ defense of Alexander remain important.

43 Polyb. 38.2.14.44 Polyb. 9.34.1–3.45 Polyb. 5.8–11.46 Billows (above, n.1) 291.47 Billows (above, n.1) gives an incorrect reference for one of the examples, stating

38.2.13–14 instead of 18.3.2–5. In book 18, although this is the rhetorical statement of the speaker and not necessarily the opinion of Polybius, it clearly portrays Alexander in a positive light.


holy sites. In book 18, Polybius has Alexander Isius, the chief commander of the Aetolians, argue that Philip V’s shameful conduct in war did not live up to the honorable example set by Alexander and his successors.

Let us now consider the fi nal two examples. In book 4, Polybius treats the comparison of the sack of Thebes by Alexander and the actions of Philip V against Sparta.48 A portion of Philip’s counselors advised him to sack Sparta as Alexander had sacked Thebes, while another portion counseled restraint and a less drastic punishment for the Spartans. Poly-bius favored the advice to spare Sparta in 220 B.C.E. because their marginal crimes did not merit the punishment of total destruction. The situation of Sparta in this instance, moreover, did not parallel that of Thebes in 335 B.C.E.49 Polybius offers no moralizing judgment about the treatment of either city. He does not portray Philip as somehow merciful, when com-pared to a merciless Alexander.50 In fact, Polybius limits the amount of praise due to Philip for his decision to spare Sparta when he argues that this judgment was likely the work of Aratus and not the king.51 Polybius does not here favorably compare Philip V with Alexander.

In another example (5.55.9–10), Polybius discusses the surrender of Media Atropatene to Antiochus III. However, the argument that Polybius compares Antiochus favorably to Alexander here is ill-founded.52 Polybius makes it a point to describe the general weakness of the king of Media Atropatene.53 Additionally, Antiochus did not conquer Media Atropatene

48 Polyb. 4.23.8–9.49 Thebes rebelled with the support of Athens and Persia, while Sparta weakly at-

tached itself to the Aetolians. The Thebans murdered Macedonian offi cials, while the Spartans killed pro-Macedonian Spartans. When Alexander offered merciful terms, the Thebans made a surprise attack and responded with insults, while the Spartans sent en-voys to Philip to apologize and beg forgiveness. Thebes decided to fi ght to the death, while Sparta never fought at all. Thebes defi antly rebelled against the Hellenic League, while Sparta returned to Macedon’s Hellenic symmachy with an immediate surrender. For more background on Sparta in this period, see L. J. Piper, Spartan Twilight (New Rochelle, NY, 1986) 75–88; P. Cartledge and A. Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities, 2nd ed. (New York 2002) 61–64.

50 This is Billows’ argument (above, n.1) 291. Although it is clear that Polybius did not support Alexander’s decision to destroy Thebes later in book 38, in book 4 this is not his objective.

51 Polyb. 4.24.1–3. See also Walbank (above, n.6) 470.52 Billows (above, n.1) 291, believes that the surrender of Media Atropatene to An-

tiochus, a region overlooked by Alexander, is a favorable comparison.53 Polyb. 5.55.8–10. To be fair, Polybius records that the region of Media Atropatene

“has a large and warlike population chiefl y mounted, while its natural resources provide every kind of warlike material.” However, he immediately follows this statement by saying

582 Classical World

by force of arms; rather, he brought the area under his hegemony without bloodshed and without diffi culty.54 In this passage, Polybius’ point is not to argue that Alexander could not have seized Media Atropatene where Antiochus did; instead, Polybius maintains that Alexander ignored this relatively insignifi cant region, while Antiochus did not.55 Polybius is not implying any failure on the part of Alexander, nor does he praise Antio-chus. The second Polybian theme is indeed generally positive.

V. Theme III: The Character and Generalship of Alexander

The third Polybian theme also provides us with four possible examples (5.10.6–9; 12.19–22; 12.23; 16.22a.5). The fi rst three examples clearly are laudatory statements. As we have discussed, Polybius praises Alex-ander’s religious reverence and restraint against the Theban temples in book 5. In book 12, Polybius criticizes Callisthenes’ account of Alexan-der’s maneuvering at Issus in 333 B.C.E. Polybius describes the foolish-ness, the confusion, and the impossibility of Callisthenes’ account. He argues that Alexander, who was a master of the art of war, could not possibly have conceived such a fl awed battle plan.56 Moreover, Polybius also calls Alexander superhuman in book 12.

The fi nal example involves Polybius’ depiction of the resistance of the Gazans to the Persians, Alexander, and Antiochus III.57 Billows con-siders this passage a Polybian criticism of Alexander, even though by his own acknowledgment it is only an interpretation of the possible impli-cations of the text.58 The argument revolves around Polybius’ use of the words safety (σωτηρία), impulse (ὁρμὴ), and force (βία).59 In Billows’

that the region was overlooked by Alexander and that its scared, feeble king quickly sued for peace terms with Antiochus.

54 Polyb. 5.55; Strabo 11.13.1–2.55 Polybius states, “The principality still remains under Persian rule, having been

overlooked in the time of Alexander,” (5.55.9).56 Polyb. 12.22.5. For more on Polybius’ criticism of Callisthenes’ account, see Wal-

bank (above, n.20) 376.57 Billows (above, n.1) 291–92.58 Billows (above, n.1) 292.59 κατὰ δὲ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου παρουσίαν οὐ μόνον τῶν ἄλλων παραδεδωκότων αὑτούς,

ἀλλὰ καὶ Τυρίων ἐξηνδραποδισμένων μετὰ βίας, καὶ σχεδὸν ἀνελπίστου τῆς σωτηρίας ὑπαρχούσης τοῖς ἐναντιου μένοις πρὸς τὴν ὁρμὴν καὶ βίαν τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου, μόνοι τῶν κατὰ Συρίαν ὑπέστησαν καὶ πάσας ἐξήλεγξαν τὰς ἐλπίδας. For the entire passage, see Polyb. 16.22a.4–6. Note also Walbank (above, n.20) 528.


opinion, Polybius here portrays Alexander as the destroyer of σωτηρία, the harbinger of βία, and a man endowed with animal ὁρμὴ.

Polybius admired cities that resisted the aggression of kings.60 Poly-bius’ approval of the resistance of the city of Abydus to Philip V is another example of this theme.61 In book 16, Polybius champions the actions of the Gazans against the attacks of Persia, Alexander, and Antiochus III.62 That is, the passage does not focus on the actions of Alexander alone. It is true that Polybius represents Alexander in this passage as aggressive against his enemies and as the enslaver of the people of Tyre. Never-theless, this passage more likely expresses a moral judgment passed by Polybius on the correct way for small states to face the forceful pressures of stronger states, not just Alexander, as the parallel at Abydus suggests.63 Polybius’ praise of the Gazans does not equate to criticism of Alexander.64

In another argument put forth by Billows, he attempts to link Poly-bius’ account with that of Hegesias of Magnesia, who held that Gaza was another instance of ruthless and cruel conduct by Alexander, a con-nection for which he offers no evidence.65 Thus, for Billows, Polybius characterized Alexander in this passage as the opposite of the Stoic ideal of a king and, in an indirect way, passed negative judgment upon Al-exander by praising the Gazans who resisted him in defense of their autonomy. This suggestion is highly speculative and lacks hard evidence.

Polybius was more than capable of openly alerting his reader when he condemned the actions of Alexander, as we see in book 38. Why Poly-bius would choose this passage in book 16 to present a condemnation of Alexander in a masked way is unclear. Polybius saw Alexander behaving

60 It is worth noting that both Arrian and Curtius Rufus contend that a Persian and Arab force garrisoned Gaza at the time of Alexander’s advance toward the city. Arrian tells us that the Governor Batis had a mercenary force of Arabs (Arr. Anab. 2.26); and Curtius Rufus records that 10,000 Persians and Arabs were killed in the siege (Curt. 4.6.30). If so, the resistance of Gaza to Alexander likely was more the decision of the Persian garrison than the Gazans themselves. Yet Polybius does not mention a Persian garrison in Gaza. He instead emphasizes the determination of the Gazans alone. It is possible that he did not mention the garrison because he forgot or did not know about it.

61 Polyb. 16.30–34. For more on Polybius’ account of the siege of Abydus, see Wal-bank (above, n.20) 541–44.

62 Polyb. 16.22a.4–6.63 In fact, Polybius states that it is his duty to make mention of cities that “act nobly

by tradition and principle,” (Polyb. 16.22a.7). See also Eckstein (above, n.6) 22, 23, 51–54, 55.

64 This is Billows’ argument (above, n.1) 293.65 Billows (above, n.1).

584 Classical World

aggressively in this instance. One should not disregard his praise of the Gazans’ resistance. Nevertheless, the origin of that praise is not an at-tack on Alexander; nor is it focused solely on the actions of Alexander, since Polybius addresses also the attacks of the Persians and of Antio-chus III, whose recent sack of Gaza was the reason for the existence of the passage.66 One cannot be certain that this passage focuses on Alexander at all, rather than on the courage of the Gazans. The third Polybian theme, apart from the speculative interpretation of this fi nal example, is adulatory.

VI. Theme IV: Allocation of Praise under Alexander’s Leadership

The fourth Polybian theme concerns “the allocation of credit for the achievements of the Macedonians under Alexander’s leadership.”67 The traditional Alexander historians often placed most of the credit for Macedonian success in the East with Alexander.68 Although Polybius offers a more balanced distribution of praise for the success of Macedon, the extent to which he offers that praise has been exaggerated. Let us examine two passages (3.6.4–14; 22.18.10) in order to determine Poly-bius’ opinion of just how much credit Alexander himself deserved for the war with Persia.

For Polybius, Alexander was crucial to the preparation for, and suc-cess of, the expedition against Persia. Polybius did not believe that Al-exander merely made use of the preparations of his father, Philip II.69 In an attempt to show that Alexander’s invasion of Asia did not cause the war with Persia, Polybius refers to “plans and preparations for which, in the case of the Persian war, had been made earlier, many (πολλὰ) by Alexander and even some (ὀλίγα) by Philip during his life.”70 Polybius here does not offer all the credit to Alexander. It is clear, however, that he still gives more credit to Alexander than to Philip.

Later, in an attempt to equate the military situation of King Perseus with that of Alexander, Polybius states that “Philip [II], son of Amyntas,

66 Polyb. 16.22a.2,6.67 Billows (above, n.1) 293.68 Billows (above, n.1) 293.69 Billows’ argues the opposite (above, n.1) 294.70 Polyb. 3.6.5. In the Polybian scheme of causation, Alexander is secondary to

Philip. However, this does not mean that Polybius assigned more credit to Philip.


conceived and meant to carry out the war against Persia, but it was Alexander who put his decision into execution.”71 This statement is not negative, and it does not offer Philip praise. In addition, Polybius here makes no mention of physical planning or preparation, emphasizing only Philip II’s conception or ideas, and Alexander’s actions. Although Polybius recognized the importance of Philip, he did not put him ahead of Alexander. Polybius understood that Alexander actually executed the war, and successfully. He also was fully aware that Alexander ultimately capitalized on the ideas and wishes of his father, unlike Hannibal or Perseus, who failed in their attempts to carry out their fathers’ alleged conceptions.72

Polybius praises Alexander and his companions in a third example (8.10.7–11). As we discussed briefl y above, in this passage Polybius de-fends the Macedonians against what he perceived as the vicious attacks of the historian Theopompus. Polybius demonstrates great respect for the magnanimity, self-restraint, and virtue of the Macedonian compan-ions of Philip and Alexander.

Polybius here praises the companions for their achievements under the rule of Alexander. Yet he does not believe that the companions of Alexander deserved a greater share of the credit for the success of Mace-don.73 Instead, Polybius assigned a large (μεγάλην) share to Alexander and no less (οὐκ ἐλάττω) to his companions and therefore an equal level of credit to Alexander and his subordinates, not a greater share to one or the other.

In addition, Polybius here does not emphasize Alexander’s inexpe-rience in contrast to the extensive experience of his companions.74 The passage nowhere mentions Alexander’s inexperience, but Polybius does refer to Alexander’s youth, stating, “although he was young” (καίπερ ὄντι νέῳ).75 Polybius’ remark about Alexander’s age here does not carry a negative connotation. For Polybius, even though Alexander was young, he was brilliant. Alexander’s age does not adversely affect Polybius’ judgment on the sharing of praise. Polybius simply asserts, “We should

71 Polyb. 22.18.10.72 Polyb. 3.6–10; 22.18.10; 28.9–10; 29.17–19.1.73 This is Billows’ argument (above, n.1) 294. 74 Billows (above, n.1) 294, believes that Polybius negatively viewed Alexander’s

experience and age.75 See Polyb. 8.10.8–9. Polybius’ point is that Alexander deserved credit in spite of

his youth, which made his accomplishments more unlikely.

586 Classical World

attribute no less [credit] to his [Alexander’s] friends and comrades.”76 Polybius does greatly praise Alexander’s companions but he does not mention their greater wisdom and experience. The companions are not meant to contrast with Alexander, making him a lesser fi gure; rather, they together form a successful and virtuous unit. For Polybius, they both shared equally in the great achievements of Macedonia and became great together.77

VII. Theme V: The Relationship between Alexander and Fortune

In the fi fth Polybian theme, we discuss whether Polybius associated Al-exander’s achievements primarily with Fortune.78 There is only one ex-ample available to us and its purpose is unclear. The passage involves Demetrius of Phalerum’s discussion of Fortune, as recorded by Polybius, who quotes the relevant portion of Demetrius’ views as follows:

“For if you consider not countless years or many generations, but only these fi fty years before us, you will read in them the cruelty of Fortune. I ask you, do you think that fi fty years ago either the Persians and the Persian king or the Macedonians and the king of Macedon, if some god had foretold the future to them, would ever have believed that at the time when we live, the very name of the Persians would have perished utterly—the Persians who were masters of almost the whole world—and that the Macedonians, whose name was formerly almost unknown, would now be the lords of it all? But nevertheless this Fortune, who never makes a compact with life, and who always defeats our reckon-ing by some novel stroke. She who ever demonstrates her power by foiling our expectations, now also, as it seems to me, makes it clear to all men, by endowing the Macedonians with the whole wealth of Per-sia, that she has but lent them these blessings until she decides to deal differently with them.” [Polybius continues] And this now happened in the time of Perseus.79

76 Polyb. 8.10.8–9, tr. Scott-Kilvert (above, n.23).77 The portrait of a young, ignorant Alexander deserving less credit than his sub-

ordinates is not a creation of Polybius. His account, although balanced, does not go to such an extreme. Yet this is Billows’ (above, n.1) 294, depiction of Polybius’ portrait of Alexander.

78 Billows (above, n.1) 295, claims “The clear implication of Polybius’ presenta-tion of Demetrius’ views is that Alexander’s success was due primarily to the favour of Fortune.”

79 Polyb. 29.21.3–7.


Demetrius’ passage on the infl uence of Fortune on the Persians and Macedonians is opaque and does not even explicitly mention Alexan-der.80 Because of the emphasis on the former obscurity of Macedon, the king here mentioned easily could be Philip II. In fact, if we take into ac-count Livy’s similar description of this rise and fall of Macedon in book 45, then we can see that Demetrius probably did here intend Philip II.81 Walbank argues that the king referred to in this passage is Amyntas III (392–370 B.C.E.). However, the fi fty-year period that Demetrius men-tions does not necessarily have to count back from Darius III’s death in 330 B.C.E., as Walbank indicates, nor does it have to coordinate with the King’s Peace in 387 B.C.E.82

Demetrius was a contemporary of Philip II and Alexander (c. 350–282 B.C.E.), which means that Walbank’s suggestion of 330 B.C.E. is pos-sible. Yet the period in which Demetrius was writing is crucial. Cicero tells us that it was during his exile in Egypt after 297 B.C.E. that Deme-trius composed his works.83 If Demetrius here refers to the fi fty years before the time in which he was writing, then Walbank’s suggestion of 380 B.C.E. is too far back to consider. Additionally, in the 340s B.C.E., the Persians, under the leadership of Artaxerxes III, known as the Great Shah, were still “masters of almost the whole world.”84 Accordingly, Demetrius’ decision to consider “only these fi fty years before us” likely would begin his discussion in the reign of Philip II (359–336 B.C.E.), pre-sumably not in that of Amyntas III, as Walbank suggests, and certainly not in that of Alexander.

What we must consider also is that the complete passage undeni-ably concerns King Perseus and his fall from power. The connection of Fortune to Perseus is a more pressing issue in this discussion than any commentary on Alexander. In any case, the passage refers to the Fortune of all of Macedon, not just of Alexander. We must therefore at least conclude that Polybius’ use of this passage shows that he believed

80 Although, Polybius does state that Demetrius wished men “to remember the time when Alexander overthrew the Persian empire.” Hence, Polybius makes a connection to Alexander. Yet he offers no value judgment. See Polyb. 29.21.2.

81 Livy, 45.9.82 See F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Vol. 3, Commentary

on Books XIX–XL (London 1979) 394. See also Xen. Hell. 5.1.29–35; Diod. 24.110.83 See Cic. Fin. 19.5484 This is especially true after the Persian reconquest of Egypt in 343 B.C.E. See I.

Shaw, ed., The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (New York 2002) 386–89.

588 Classical World

that all of the successes and failures of Macedon were connected to For-tune. To focus only on Alexander here would be inappropriate. There is no way to prove this passage connects Alexander himself specifi cally with Fortune, since it is concerned primarily with Perseus’ fall, and not primarily Alexander. In addition, a connection between Alexander and Fortune would not necessarily carry a negative connotation.85 Oakley points out that for a person living in the ancient world to say that For-tune favored someone was a great compliment.86 Finally, Polybius tells us that he included the Demetrius passage because he was impressed with how Demetrius appeared to predict the fall of Macedon, an event through which Polybius himself lived and one that he felt demanded the recollection of Demetrius’ words.87

VIII. Theme VI: Favorable Comparison of Roman Accomplishments to Those of Alexander

Now let us turn to a sixth Polybian theme. It is well known that Poly-bius found the Romans fascinating and deeply respected their accom-plishments. As we have seen in several of the Alexander passages found in Polybius’ history, he held a similar opinion of Alexander. This fi nal theme involves Polybius’ interest in how the Romans proved superior, even to Alexander. For Polybius, although Alexander was great, the Ro-mans were greater.88 Much like in book 8 when Polybius praises Philip II, Alexander, and their companions, idealizing and exaggerating the

85 Billows (above, n.1) presents this passage as critical of Alexander.86 Oakley (above, n.7) 199.87 Polyb. 29.21.8–9. Neither man makes a value judgment about the peoples

with whom Fortune toys. Hence, the concept has little relevance to Polybius’ opinion to Alexander.

88 It must be mentioned that Livy drew heavily on Polybius for his eastern accounts. Polybius’ original text no longer survives because all that remains are the Constantinian excerpts from the de legat. gent. There are several passages where scholars consider Poly-bius a direct infl uence on Livy. Since Livy often used Polybius as his principal source, we see a continuation of certain Polybian themes of adulation toward Alexander and the same construct of portraying Alexander as great but the Romans as greater. See especially H. Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen ü ber die Quellen der vierten und fü nften Dekade des Livius (Berlin 1863) 249, 254, 341; Walbank (above, n.82) 105–11; J. Briscoe, Commen-tary on Livy, 2 (Oxford 1981) 338–43, 358–62. Polybius’ sources are more diffi cult to es-tablish since he used many and wove them all together. This is especially true for Polybius’ accounts of the Greek East. See Walbank (above, n.6) 26–35.


characteristics of the Macedonians, he follows a similar formula when he compares Rome directly to the accomplishments of Macedon under Alexander.89 Polybius distorts reality in order to accomplish this theme.

In this sixth theme, Polybius portrays Rome as Alexander’s succes-sor and the true world hegemon, as superior to the Macedonian world created by Alexander. Diana Spencer emphasizes that Polybius saw the Romans as the new power replacing the prestige of Alexander: “Thus in Polybius we may be seeing the beginning of the story that would later have Livy characterize Rome itself as the super-Alexander.”90 Neverthe-less, we fi nd this characterization just as fully developed in Polybius as in Livy.

Polybius discusses the extent of Alexander’s conquests in a cou-ple of examples. In book 3, Polybius links the conquests of Alexander and those of Rome.91 He discusses how their combined conquests had opened up the world to writers such as himself. Although he does not offer judgment on the comparison of the two empires, this passage demonstrates that the association of the conquests of Alexander and Rome in Polybius’ work is not an isolated incident. Additionally, in book 8 Polybius makes brief mention of the wars of the Diadochi as they fought over “the empire of the greater part of the world.”92 The gener-als of Alexander fought a series of fi erce wars after his death, dividing what was once Alexander’s vast empire.93 Finally, in book 21, Polybius quotes Demetrius of Phalerum, who spoke of the Persians as formerly the “masters of almost the whole world” and the Macedonians as the new “lords of it all.”94 The massive size of Alexander’s empire was of at least some interest to Polybius. He demonstrates this interest in book 1 where he fi rst makes the connection between the conquests of Rome and Macedon, while contemplating the size of Alexander’s empire when compared to that of the Romans.

89 Polyb. 8.10. It should be stated that in book 1 Polybius does not directly mention Alexander. However, he clearly addresses Alexander indirectly by discussing the Macedo-nian conquest of Asia.

90 D. Spencer, The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth (Exeter 2003) 33.91 See Polyb. 3.59.92 See Polyb. 8.10.11.93 For a sophisticated analysis of the thirty years following Alexander’s death and the

wars of the Diadochi, see A. B. Bosworth, The Legacy of Alexander: Politics, Warfare, and Propaganda under the Successors (New York 2005).

94 See Polyb. 29.21.3–7.

590 Classical World

At the beginning of his work, Polybius attempts to emphasize the superiority of Roman accomplishments to those of Alexander initially by focusing on Europe instead of Asia. He states, “The rule of the Macedo-nians in Europe extended only from the lands bordering the Adriatic to the Danube, which would appear to be no more than a small fraction of the continent.”95 The Romans of the second century B.C.E., by contrast, came to control much more of Europe than Alexander.

When Polybius then addresses Asia, he again attempts to min-imize the vast territorial accomplishments of the Macedonians under Alexander. He states, “Later, by overthrowing the Persian Empire, they [Alexander and the Macedonians] also became the rulers of Asia; but al-though they were then regarded as having become the masters of a larger number of states and territories than any other people before them, they still left the greater part of the inhabited world in the hands of oth-ers.”96 Polybius notes that Alexander and his contemporaries possessed a marginal knowledge of the West in this period, stating that “they [Al-exander and the Macedonians] did not even once attempt to dispute the possessions of Sicily, Sardinia, or Libya, and the most warlike tribes of western Europe were, to speak the plain truth, unknown to them.”97 Yet the former statement corresponds with Polybius’ attempts to show the limits of Macedonian territorial expansion as opposed to Rome and to make mid-republican Roman conquests look geographically larger in scale than Alexander’s, when in fact they were not.

95 Polyb. 1.2.4, tr. Scott-Kilvert.96 Polyb. 1.2.5, tr. Scott-Kilvert. Polybius never traversed the lands east of the Eu-

phrates River conquered by Alexander. It is possible that he simply did not understand the extensiveness of Alexander’s conquests. Yet he was a well-read, educated man, and it seems unlikely that he would not have had at least some concept of the vast distances be-tween Greece and India. In fact, at 3.59 he mentions the opening up of the Asiatic districts of Alexander’s empire. Additionally, at 8.10.11 he refers to Alexander’s empire as “the greater part of the world.” It appears more likely that Polybius offers here a “western,” or “Roman” bias.

97 Polyb. 1.2.6, tr. Scott-Kilvert. There was a longstanding literary tradition con-cerning Alexander’s Hypomnemata, or Last Plans. Over the course of nearly a millennia, ancient authors discussed the hypothetical military plans of Alexander, which included conquests of Arabia, North Africa, Spain, and Italy. See Livy, 9.17–19; Plut. Pyrrh. 19.1–2, Alex. 68.1–2; Diod. 18.4.1–6; Curt. 10.1.17–20; Arr. Anab. 7.1.3, 7.19.3–6; Julian. Ep. no. 47, 433 C; Amm. Marc. 30.8.5; Oros. 3.15.10; Jo. Lyd. Mag. 1.38. For more background information on the last plans of Alexander, see A. B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation (New York 1988) 185–211; E. Badian, “A King’s Note-books,” HSCP 72 (1967) 183–204.


Polybius’ argument is defi cient in terms of the comparison of the relative geographic scope of the conquests of Alexander and of the Ro-mans. Still, the fact that he made this argument is itself signifi cant. The scope of Alexander’s empire and the comparison between the accom-plishments of Rome and those of Alexander was an additional subject of interest for Polybius. On the one hand, he wished to recognize Alexan-der’s achievements as great, providing a high standard.98 On the other, Polybius wished to champion Rome above that standard, leading to glar-ing exaggerations. He ends this passage by stating, “The Romans, on the other hand, have brought not just mere portions but almost the whole of the world under their rule, and have left an empire which far surpasses any that exists today or is likely to succeed it.”99 Yet the Roman state of Polybius’ day was modest in size when compared to the empires of the Persians or Alexander. In fact, it was only a fraction of the Roman Empire’s future size.

The sixth Polybian theme is an important addition to our under-standing of Polybius’ portrayal of Alexander, as it enhances our appre-ciation of Polybius’ “balanced” depiction of the great king. It also has strong implications for other Polybian themes, both within his depiction of Alexander and his more general narrative. It is worth noting that Poly-bius does not mention Alexander directly in book 1. He instead refers to “the Macedonians” of Alexander’s period collectively. Polybius might have done this for a number of reasons. Perhaps he wished to equate the entirety of Macedonian greatness with that of Rome.100 Another possible motive might have been his wish to distance himself here from directly criticizing Alexander.101 Yet one must also consider the fourth Polybian theme where he praises Alexander and his companions equally. It is clear that Polybius considered Alexander and his Macedonians a unit, one that accomplished great things together and deserved equal praise (or, in this case, an equally unfavorable comparison in the face of Roman

98 We see this especially in Polyb. 3.59; 5.10.6–11; 8.10; 12.23.99 Polyb. 1.2.7 “σχεδὸν δὲ πᾶσαν πεποιημένοι τὴν οἰκουμένην ὑπήκοον αὑτοῖς” tr.

Scott-Kilvert (The italics are mine.) Note also Walbank (above, n.6) 41–42. Even if Poly-bius here includes lands over which the Romans claimed hegemony, he remains greatly mistaken. This statement also contradicts his remark at 8.10.11, where he states that the Diadochi fought over “the greater part of the world.”

100 See Livy 9.18.12–19. Notice that Livy in his Alexander digression does the oppo-site, he focuses on the one Alexander against the entirety of Rome.

101 In fact, this would be in line with Polybius’ generally positive opinion of Alexander.

592 Classical World

accomplishments).102 Additionally, although Polybius’ unfavorable com-parison of the accomplishments of Alexander in this sixth theme is indi-rect and moderate, the comparison of Alexander to the Romans proves critical where the comparisons of Alexander with other kings in theme two did not.103 Finally, for Polybius this sixth theme was a crucial piece of the larger, more central subject of his own work: how the uniqueness of the Romans made them superior to all others, including Alexander, in the history of the Mediterranean world.

IX. Conclusion

The six Polybian themes concerning Alexander the Great, which we have discussed in this study, demonstrate that Polybius engaged in a multifac-eted analysis of the great king. Polybius’ account is important because it is our oldest surviving example of analysis of Alexander. Additionally, Polybius’ portrayal of the Macedonian king differs in several ways from the accounts of the traditional Alexander historians, which are generally more apologetic and adulatory. What we fi nd in Polybius’ history is a more balanced perspective on the life, actions, and achievements of Al-exander. An apologetic tone is mostly absent from his depiction. Yet it is not completely missing. In the Lyciscus speech, Polybius provides the same line of reasoning offered by the traditional Alexander historians for the sack of Thebes. The apologia is presented in an indirect way, but it is there for Polybius’ audience to notice it.

Moreover, although Polybius’ portrayal of Alexander is more bal-anced, with depictions both of favorable and unfavorable qualities, we cannot view his general opinion of Alexander as negative. This paper has demonstrated that, other than Polybius’ reproachful comment on Alexander’s sack of the city of Thebes (balanced by his praise for Alex-ander’s sparing of the temples), his championing of the territorial con-quests of the Romans over those of Alexander (balanced by his respect for Alexander’s vast accomplishments), and perhaps an indirect remark about Gaza, Polybius’ account proves generally positive and noncritical. In fact, Polybius shows great respect for Alexander in most instances.104

102 Billows (above, n.1) does not make this connection between 1.2 and 8.10. 103 Again, Billows (above, n.1), who believes Polybius offers two negative judgments

in his second theme, fails to recognize the implications of 1.2.104 See above, n.98.


The original fi ve Polybian themes concerning Alexander, developed by Billows, require reconsideration and a crucial addition, since his pioneering discussion is incomplete. Many of his assertions about Poly-bius’ depiction of Alexander go too far. In addition, from a reinvesti-gation of the evidence, a sixth Polybian theme has emerged: Polybius’ favorable comparison of the accomplishments of Rome to those of Al-exander the Great.

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE [email protected]

Documents

Six Polybian Themes Concerning Alexander the Great