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.
No comments:
Post a Comment