Was Alexander's Empire Doomed to Fall?

When discussing the fall of great empires, it is clear that at some point, every empire that has ever existed has eventually fallen. However, what is not clear is whether or not the downfall was ‘doomed’, or whether it was a series of unforeseen catalysts that brought about the downfall. In the case of Alexander the Great’s empire, it is can be concluded that there were cracks in the foundations, yet it was this combination of this and catalysts that sparked the decline that led to the downfall of the empire as Alexander knew it. For example, the obvious size of the empire was a weakness itself, as it encompassed different cultures that no amount of integration could force together effectively.[1] The fact that Alexander left no born heir also caused diadochoi rulers to divide the empire into segments and rule, at first, in the name of Alexander’s handicapped brother and infant son, but then claiming the territory as their own by establishing separate dynasties.[2] These separate factors increased the pressure on the empire, but this does not infer that the empire was doomed from the beginning: instead, it is possible that these events contributed to the eventual fall of the empire.

When discussing whether or not the fall of Alexander’s empire was inevitable, it is integral to discuss when it is considered to have ‘fallen.’ For the purposes of this paper, it has been concluded that the time period it is considered to have fallen is when the ‘Successors’ began to establish their own dynasties, stripping away the pretence that they were ruling in the name of Arrhidaios and Alexander IV. This occurred in approximately 306 B.C.E., following various diadochoi, prompted by Antigonus in Macedon and Ptolemy in Egypt, claiming independence. The reason that the ‘Successors’ were the final cause of the fall of Alexander’s empire was due to the fact that they all had separate agendas: none of which included working together to maintain the empire as a whole.[3] Therefore, it must be concluded that it was from the time of the diadochoi that Alexander’s empire, as he had known it, had ceased to exist. Therefore, a key factor that contributed to the demise of Alexander’s empire was his failure to provide an heir that could rule over the empire without the need for guardianship. Although Cook disagrees at first and argues that Alexander’s empire was held together by his generals for four years following his death,[4] the division of the empire was inevitable. Selecus, Ptolemy, Kassandrus, Perdiccas and Lysimachos ruled as diadochoi as guardians of Alexander IV and Arrihidaios in the beginning. For an empire so extensive, it was inevitable that, due to their own ambitions,[5] each diadochoi would eventually claim to rule over segments of it for themselves, with power struggles over territory and the support of the army dominating the twenty years following Alexander’s death.[6] With these power struggles came the physical beginning of the breakup of Alexander’s empire as he knew it: the diadochoi gained their own territories and began to claim them as their own, creating entirely new, separate dynasties. For example, the Seleucids, with their subjugation of Babylon (312 B.C.), began the beginnings of the Seleucid dynasty, separate – but with the roots – of Alexander’s.[7] Although it was the division that initially began the literal break up of the Hellenistic Empire, it was, of course, the demise of these sub-Empires that derived from Alexander’s that marked the end of Alexander’s empire. This demise of these kingdoms can be directly related to the fact that Alexander left no obvious heir: had he done so, this ruler would have almost certainly ruled the Hellenistic Empire as a whole, rather than split it up and delegate power. Therefore, it can be concluded that from the moment of Alexander’s death and his failure to provide an heir that could rule, one could argue that Alexander’s empire was in fact doomed to fall. However there is the argument that in the beginning, although for a short amount of time, there was some recognition that a ‘single centralised authority’ was necessary[8] – although this argument does eventually admit that from the moment it was divided between the successors, Alexander’s empire was, indeed, doomed to fail.

A straightforward, yet sometimes overlooked, factor that was a long-term cause of the fall of Alexander’s empire, was the fact that it engulfed many different cultures and religions. As a modern onlooker, we are aware from the hindsight we have gained over thousands of years that the combination of a variety of cultures can lead to conflict, despite a government or ruler’s best intentions. Alexander encouraged integration: some could say he forced it upon his subjects – for example in the case of the mass marriage ceremony at Susa in 324 B.C. In this instance, Alexander and his generals (although against their will in many cases) took Iranian wives,[9] with the intention that the ruling class would have heritage from throughout the empire, not just from Madecon.[10] This reflected a policy that his father, Philip II, had promoted: political marriages.[11] However, by forcing culturally diverse peoples together, Alexander did the opposite of what his good intentions were: he became engulfed with the idea that integration could be successful that his vision of reality was impaired. This is reflected by the fact that after Alexander died, many of the generals who had been forced to marry these Iranian women divorced their wives. It was not only political marriages that reflected the ideals of cultural integration: the army consisted of a number of men from every region that the empire ruled.[12] This caused numerous conflicts from within the army, which, from what history tells the modern historian, is the power base of any large empire. Divisions, for example in 327 B.C.E. when Macedonian resistance caused an ethnic split of the army, weakened the fighting force that had relied upon unity. Resistance reached a breaking point during the campaign in India, in which Alexander faced mutiny from his troops and was forced to retreats. This army was further divided subsequent to Alexander’s death, which proved fatal for a number of territories within the empire.[13] With conclusion to the argument that far reaching ethnic diversity was a prolonged cause of the downfall of Alexander’s empire, it is unfair to say that the fact that many different cultures encompassed by the empire gave the empire a ‘doomed’ fate. However, it did create a prolonged effect of tension between not only civilians, but the army as well, leading to weaknesses that were unable to be repaired. This, coupled with the division of the empire following Alexander’s death, was eventually to cause the fall of the empire.

To discuss the fall of Alexander’s empire, it is not only necessary to discuss the internal forces that caused the demise: it is also vital to consider the fall of the empire in the context of other events in the rest of the world. A central factor that was a further cause of the fall of Alexander’s empire was the rise of the Roman Empire, which was causing concern to Alexander throughout his reign.[14] For example, Macedon was frequently in conflict with Rome during the second and first centuries B.C., and after decisive losses Rome overthrew the Antigonid dynasty and divided the kingdom.[15] As Cook infers, Rome was increasingly expanding and had become involved in Greek politics, disallowing them to recover from losses at Magnesia.[16] Due to the rising power of the Roman’s military might and the close proximity of one to the other, it was inevitable that the two would eventually clash. However, it is unfair to say that Alexander’s empire was ‘doomed’ as it could have been that the Greeks had won the battles. It was simply a case of the Romans being stronger at the time that contributed to the fall of Alexander’s empire: it was not the case that the empire of Alexander was doomed from the moment the Romans began building theirs. Also, the Romans did not come to such dominance until after Alexander’s death, when the Successors had established their own kingdoms, and when, for the purposes of this paper, we have established that the fall of Alexander’s empire as he knew it occurred at this point. However the growth of Roman influence did contribute to the fact that the Greeks could not re-establish their empire after losing territories. This does, indeed, link back to the idea that the lost territories to the Romans through the division of Alexander’s empire to the Successors led to the downfall. It does not, however, contribute to the notion that the empire was necessarily doomed from the very beginning. It was an unfortunate coincidence for the Greeks and the members of Alexander’s empire that the Romans came into strength at the time they did, making it impossible for the Hellenistic empire to re-unite and re-establish their power.

In conclusion, Alexander’s empire cannot necessarily be defined as ‘doomed to fail’ from the beginning of his reign. However, a number of events did shape its downfall, notably Alexander’s death and failure to provide an heir that could rule his empire in the same way he had, and thereby supposedly ‘dooming’ it from this moment onwards. The cultural differences that caused tension within the empire began to spread the further the territory did, and this was underpinned in the case of the military. The emergence of other forces, such as Rome, made it more difficult for the segregated dominions of the empire (that Alexander previously had ruled solely) to maintain its combatant force. It is also worth noting that every empire that has ever existed, ancient or modern, has eventually fallen: despite their strength and influence, no empire has withstood the tests of time and empires from antiquity do not exist today. It is, therefore, possible to admit that not just Alexander’s empire was doomed to fall, but every empire prior and subsequent of it has been also.

---

[1] Ellis, (1976), p.234

[2] Boardman, Griffin, Murray, (1991), p.367

[3] Wheatley, (2009), p.59

[4] Cook, (1962), p.160

[5] Cook, (1962), p.160

[6] Boardman, Griffin, Murray, (1991), p.367, Cook, (1962), p.160

[7] Boardman, Griffin, Murray, (1991), p.367

[8] Cook, (1962), p.160

[9] Arrian, VII 1, 1-4

[10] Brosius, (2003), pp.187

[11] For further detail of the political marriages that Philip engaged in, refer to Ellis, (1976), pp.211: however the author disputes the source, due to its chronological imperfectness – however it does provide one with a list of sorts that can be reflected upon to gain knowledge about Philip’s various political marriages

[12] Hammond, Griffith, (1979), p.100

[13] Hammond, Griffith, (1979), p.115

[14] Arrian, VII 1, 1-4

[15] Hammond, (1989), pp.12-13

[16] Cook, (1962), p.166: However it is important to point out that this event occurred subsequently to the time in which this paper considers the fall of Alexander’s empire to have occurred – although it does provide insight into further causes of why it never recovered, and therefore maintaining the fall.

A round up.

As the Christmas break looms, it's probably quite important for me to discuss the last two and a half months, as they have been the first ones of the Undergraduate time at Bristol University.

While my previous blog posts have been topic-based and reflect a few essays that I have written, this post will basically round up the last two and a half months, looking back over the three units that have consisted of my course so far.

Introduction to Ancient History

Although difficult to explain what this unit actually involves, it does provide invaluable knowledge and skills, re-caps essay writing (that many of us have long-forgotten over the extended summer) as well as allowing us to write various short essays on a wide range of ancient issues: for example, one title included "The Scope of Ancient History." While one might think that this is an 'easy' essay as 'you can write about whatever you want', writing about whatever you want is not always the easiest thing to do in the world. However, choosing the topic of imperialism, it was a great way to get back into essay writing and the feedback provided was of great use, and various essay deadlines were looming for both of my other modules, of which I will mention in greater detail further down. The unit also focused on how to deal with sources, both primary, secondary and archeaological. Although, of course, any one who took A-level Classics or History would have touched upon these skills, the way in which you are taught to look at these sources requires a different perspective from a university-standard angle. In other words, Introduction to Ancient History made all of us realise that we had to do things properly now, not just what we were taught at A-level (which, while interesting and difficult, is nothing quite like the depth of thought needed at university.)

Viewing the City of Rome

This section will undoubtedly have a certain amount of bias within it, as Ancient Rome is a topic that I am extremely passionate about. In fact, a visit to Rome actually swayed my decision between studying History and Ancient History. It is by far, in my opinion, one of the most fascinating social, political and economic establishments that the world has ever seen. I thouroughly enjoyed looking at the city of Rome thematically, for example with lecture titles as 'Amphitheatres' and 'Trade'. The title of the unit does exactly what it says on the tin - it gives you a wide range of Roman history. A special interest of mine became the cultural aspects of Rome, for example the leisure tendancies as well as the religious divinities that existed. This preference for the Roman culture aided my essay, which was on the subject of the physical nature of foreign cults in Rome and a Roman's attitude towards them. I thouroughly enjoyed the research for this essay, as I gained more of an understanding of how foreign Rome actually was - something that I had not really considered in much detail previously. Although some topics within this unit were not the most elaborate (for example, the sewage system), it did not leave any aspect just because it was undesirable. The unit gives an unbiased account of what Roman life really was like.

The Hellenistic World

Although it took me a few lectures to get involved in this topic, I grew to thouroughly enjoy the content. Alexander the Great is often deemed as a 'primary school history lesson' - however, it is far from it. Having not really studied the topic before (apart from, admittedly, in primary school...) I was intrigued to realise that what I thought was what occurred in the period was not true: in other words, I learnt something new - some would say £9000 well spent. However again, this unit allowed me to view the Hellenistic empire through a different perspective and putting it into the content of the world at the time, linking it to the Persian Empire. It was also refreshing to not simply study the reign of Alexander the Great, but also include his ancestry and Phillip II, as well as the diadochoi rulers that followed him and eventually doomed Alexander's empire as he knew it (an essay on whether or not Alexander's empire will follow this post). Therefore in all, this unit gave a fantastic overview of the period, giving insight into context that is not commonly found in lower sections of education.

What does the nature of the physical presence of foreign cults in Rome tell us about Roman attitudes to the outside world?

As the Roman Empire expanded across the globe, it was not just language and territory that became more diverse. The spread of the empire brought foreign cults to Rome through trade, slavery and triumph, and what was Roman religion became an assortment of many traditions Romanized in the capital.[1] And of course, along with religion came temples, sanctuaries, statues and altars dedicated to foreign divinities. The representations and locations of different cults varied: for example, foreign cults with temples within the pomerium, such as on the Aventine Hill, portray an acceptance of the outside world and Romans have allowed their deities within the sacred boundary. The way in which foreign cults are physically presented in Rome tells us the different attitudes of the Romans. Those that were elaborate and displayed in public areas such as the Forum Romani and within the pomerium portray a sense of Romanization, whereas those that were merely accepted but driven to less public areas of the city, and sometimes underground, reflect less of an acceptance of the invading or subjugated religion. Furthermore, as Orlin argues, even though many deities from foreign lands were brought to Rome, ‘a great many more were not,’[2] reflecting a lack of total willingness to allow the outside world to have influence in Rome.

One of the earliest examples of a foreign religion within Rome is the temple of a plebeian triad, Ceres, Liber and Libera at the foot of the Aventine Hill, which dates back to 493 B.C.E.[3] This cult represents Greek influence within Rome, with even the temple itself having been supposedly painted by Greek artists.[4] With this Greek influence so early on in Rome’s history sitting so central to the city within the pomerium, the physical presence of the temple portrays the earliest signs of an acceptance towards the outside world. The nature of the physical presence of this cult does not end at the temple of the triad: the Games of Ceres (‘Ludi Ceriales’)[5], held between the twelfth and nineteenth of April in the Circus Maximus, also presented a Greek influence in Rome. By incorporating the cult into the Roman religious calendar and having a temple erected in their honour, the cult of Ceres, Liber and Libera had a permanent presence in the minds of Romans. However, the temple of the triad, as well as the Aventine itself, was commonly associated with the plebeian section of society.[6] It has been argued that foreign cults coming to Rome were a result of military campaigns, and as the plebs made up large proportion of the Roman military, it seemed appropriate that the pleb’s service could be celebrated on the Aventine.[7] However this is an unlikely scenario, as many foreign cults that entered Rome following the conquering of their native land did not appear to be represented on the Aventine Hill. It may have merely been a case of the Roman’s plebeian society recognising the new divinities and adopting them as their own, allowing them to enter from the outside world. The plebeian society, amongst their low life expectancy and squalid conditions,[8] now had religious deities that they could turn to that they could not previously, and by the Republican period, Ceres had become a patron of the lower classes of Rome.

Whilst some cults reflect the conquering of another land and the importation of their deities, the Romans also believed that if they invited particular gods to Rome, it would bring them victory or prosperity. This reflects the attitude that the Romans would encourage the outside world when it could benefit them. One example of this recruitment of a foreign deity to aid Rome was Cybele, or, as she was known in Rome, Magna Mater (‘Great Mother’).[9] Cybele was brought to Rome by the Senate during the Punic Wars – not by trade or word of mouth, but by the ruling body of Rome – as it was believed that she would bring victory over Carthage.[10] This reflects respect for the outside world, as well as admission that other deities could be necessary to maintain Rome’s power. This is further portrayed by the location of Cybele’s temple in Rome on the Palatine Hill next to the Imperial Palace: this quashes notions that Romans were not willing to receive foreign divinities within the pomerium.[11] However, Roman pontifices monitored the cults of Cybele. These were highly ranking priests of Rome, and this reflects a desire to Romanize the cults and govern them in a way that was satisfactory to the social elite of Rome.[12] It is therefore likely that the physical presence of Cybele, and the way in which her cults were presented, were monitored by the cult’s Roman priesthood. This depicts an example of control over the way in which foreign cults were portrayed in Rome, much like in the way that Rome then controlled the origin of those foreign divinities.[13]

An example of an undoubtedly foreign cult that came to Rome is that of Juno Regina. In September 392 B.C.E. following the successful conquer of Veii, a ceremony took place that brought Juno Regina from Veii to Rome[14]. This ceremony marked an evocatio[15]: a physical spectacle that celebrated the integration of a foreign cult into Roman society.[16] This physical celebration of a new religion, and the dedication of a temple to it, marked the incorporation of a foreign religion and shows how the people of Rome now claimed Veii as part of their empire, and therefore Veii’s deities became Rome’s as well. The incorporation of the Temple of Juno Regina is commonly associated with the expansion of Roman power, and Orlin suggests that it was welcomed into the city as a means of depicting the willingness of the Romans to accept those that were ready and willing to provide Rome with a service: in the case of Juno Regina, it was believed that she had brought Rome’s victory over Veii, and was therefore invited to Rome to become Roman.[17] As Dionysius of Halicarnassus argues, Rome never ‘officially adopted’ a foreign culture, but instead celebrated them as their own ‘in accordance with her own traditions.’[18] In some respects, the evocatio of Juno Regina represents not the adopting of then new religion, but instead the integration of it into the Roman calendar. The physical presence of Juno Regina’s temple and its magnificent triumphal archway reflects that the Romans perceived this new cult as essentially Roman, so in their minds may not have depicted a certain attitude to what was previously the ‘outside world.’ However it does portray an initial allowance for the outside world to have some form of influence in Rome, as Juno Regina could have been easily left out of the Roman religious calendar, but was chosen to be included.[19]

Egyptian cults also migrated to Rome around the first century B.C., as early as the time of Sulla, when the Isaic god of Pastophori had been incorporated.[20] It was inevitable that Egyptian cults would eventually find their way to Rome through trade routes following the fall of the Ptolemy dynasty in the North African region. However it is the favourite lady of Egypt, Isis, that must be given thought when depicting foreign cults within Rome and how they reflected a Roman’s view on the outside world. Although the religion faced difficulty in the time of Augustus and was banned frequently, this was mainly due to the emperor’s familial ties to Caesar and his dealings with Marc Anthony and Cleopatra. Isis was one of the most prominent foreign cults physically present in Rome, with her symbolism and bust appearing on coins of emperors such as Diocletian and Hadrian. The fact that her image was portrayed on coinage shows the acceptance of the cult from the outside world from the point of view of the emperor. As an everyday object, the images of Isis on coinage would soon become part of a Roman’s day-to-day experience, familiarizing themselves with a religion that was once foreign, but was now engulfed in the Roman Empire. Egyptian cults were not only present in coinage, but also in monuments and temples, with Isis’ large sanctuary in Rome having an entrance of a triumphal archway that would have been impressive to any passer-by. Turcan goes into great detail on the subject of Isis’ affect on the Roman people: ‘Isis had the bewitching charm, beauty and goodness of a Madonna who would above all listen to women and the unfortunate.’[21] Therefore it appears that the exoticness of Isis, through her constant presence in the landscape and everyday monetary exchanges, appealed to the Romans and made those that previously felt powerless in society that they could now look to a new religion and make it their own. Because Egyptian cults became part of the landscape, coinage and ritual proceedings of Rome, it must therefore be insinuated that the Romans had a certain or high degree of acceptance for the culture from the outside world. It reflects Turcan’s argument that the cults appealed to the people of Rome as something new and exotic, as well as an opportunity to further portray their rule and dominance over foreign lands. It can be argued that, whereas the Roman people may have had some acceptance of this foreign cult, particular emperors and senates did not share these views.[22] Both Turcan and Witt dwell on the ban of Isis in the pomerium and in the suburbs,[23] with Turcan concluding that the senate’s worry caused them to withdraw support from the cult of Isis, as they were ‘anxious to restore the values of Rome’s most traditional qualities.’[24] This reflects an anxiety over foreign cults and their influence in Rome from above – and if this anxiety had any foundation then it could be suggested that the Roman people were receptive to the cults, which was in turn antagonising the senate. The extent of the evidence of the presence of Isis reflects an example of Romans incorporating foreign cults into their own society,[25] and in turn allowing the outside world to become a part of Rome itself.

In conclusion, it is clear that foreign cults did have influence within Rome through their impact on the landscape, as well as on coinage throughout the Republican and Imperial periods. Although different scales of acceptance varied in accordance to the emperor at the time and his values,[26] foreign cults - even if their origin was distorted - still had a place in the Roman religious calendar and permanent features such as temples and shrines. This varied acceptance portrays an equally diverse attitude to the outside world: in some instances, imperial expansion and a ‘need’ for a certain god led to the incorporation of foreign cults in Rome, reflecting the attitude that Rome was expanding and therefore so did it’s religious calendar. It must be remembered that there was reasoning behind each foreign cult in Rome, as many more religious deities were not brought to the ancient city.[27] This reflects some concerns of the Roman people for the cults of the outside world. It was more of a case of whether or not the foreign deity could benefit Rome: if it was, for example, predicted that a certain god would bring victory, then it was more likely that that deity would be accepted within the city. It can, therefore, be suggested that the physical presence of foreign cults in Rome does not necessarily reflect a particular view on the outside world: instead, it reflects the Roman need for victory and survival, which they believed divinities from the outside world could encourage.

---

[1] Turcan, R., (2000), pp.105

[2] Orlin, E. M., (2010) pp.31

[3] Turcan, R., (2000), pp.107

[4] Pliny the Elder, 35.154

[5] Ovid, 4

[6] Orlin, E. M., (2002), pp.9

[7] Andreussi, (1993), pp.149, cited in Orlin, E. M., (2002) pp.9

[8] Scobie, A., (1986), pp.401, 407

[9] Beard, M., (1994), pp.153

[10] Beard, M., (1994), pp. 168

[11] Orlin, E. M., (2002), pp.2

[12] Beard, M., (1994), pp.173

[13] Vermaseren, M., (1977), pp.98. For further reference to the manipulation of Cybele in Rome, see pp.90-100. It is highlighted that many priests were not castrated, therefore dividing the priesthood into a Roman section and Phyrgian one.

[14] Orlin, E. M., (2002), pp.1

[15] Livy, 5.21-23

[16] Orlin, E. M., (2002), pp.1

[17] Orlin, E. M., (2010), pp.40-41

[18] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 2.19

[19] Orlin, E. M., (2010) pp.31

[20] Witt, R., (1971), pp.222

[21] Turcan, R., (2000), pp.122

[22] Witt, R., (1971), pp.229

[23] Witt, R., (1971), pp.223

[24] Turcan, R., (2000), pp.121-122

[25] Turcan, R., (2000), pp.124

[26] For further reference to individual rulers and different policies introduced by them regarding the influence of foreign cults, refer to Witt, R., (1971), pp.223-239

[27] Orlin, E. M., (2010), pp.31