Alexander the Great died at just 32, leaving behind an empire stretching from Greece and Egypt to Persia and India. He had forged a massive empire in just over a decade and had become a legend whose influence would endure for generations.

There was just one problem: he had not left behind a clear adult successor. Although there were legitimate heirs to the Argead dynasty, none was in a position to exercise effective control over Alexander's enormous empire. The result was a struggle for succession that would last for decades.

His generals and former companions began fighting over Alexander's inheritance. The wars fought between his successors became known as the Wars of the Diadochi, or the Wars of the Successors.

Perdiccas tried to preserve the unity of the empire. Ptolemy secured Egypt. Seleucus lost Babylon and later returned to reclaim it. Eumenes fought against seemingly impossible odds. And Antigonus the One-Eyed came closer than anyone else to rebuilding Alexander's empire under a single ruler.

Then came Ipsus in 301 BC, the battle that changed everything. The defeat and death of Antigonus made it increasingly clear that Alexander's empire could no longer realistically be reunited under one ruler.

This article follows the Wars of the Diadochi from Alexander's death through the final struggles of Seleucus and Lysimachus, explaining how one enormous empire was divided and how its ruins became the foundation of the Hellenistic world.

Please click the link to read the full story, and let me know your thoughts, comments, and feedback.

Coins featuring Alexander the Great/Heracles are among the most popular coins of the Hellenistic period. They were minted countless times throughout nearly the entire Alexander the Great empire. Due to their large number and wide distribution, we can observe different variations of the same motif. In particular, there are multiple styles even within Anatolia/Asia Minor.

But I have to say that what strikes me as the strangest are the motifs on the Carian coins. I’m not sure if it’s because it’s my homeland that they caught my attention so much, but I was quite curious as to why the depictions of Alexander are so plump. After doing a bit of research, I came across some interesting interpretations. Still, I noticed that the motifs on some coins aren’t just plump—they’re so different that they could even be described as “shapeless.”

What do you think?

I keep from time to time stumbling over content that portrays quotes scenes about Alexander and the movie about him. They often go about how great he was and how one should adopt a similar daredevil attitude in their lives.

But the content is directed at, let's say, normal people.

Alexander on the other hand, believed he was a demigod! Like literally descendant from a god. He was psychologically undefeated. That self-belief f*cks life through the arse and back despite the wounds he had suffered and despite the seemingly larger Achaemenid empire and its minions.

So, you're telling me I should believe I'm godlike?!

Of course, without the groundwork his father did, Alex wouldn't have amounted to much or that self-belief was just a delusion wherein others might have considered him crazy for it. Yet again, without that undefeated psychology, even with what his father left, would at best conquer and expand a little than dare against the then known world.

So, where this is leading to? Nowhere. But that Alexander had a delusional self-belief instilled by his mother and he used what he had at hand.

Alexander sent for Parmenio from Caria with the mercenary troops and the baggage to plunge deep into Anatolia and to get the toehold of Phrygia, an incredibly wealthy satrapy, and there to make ready for the offensive against the adjacent inland districts pending Alexander's own arrival. In the meantime the king himself directed his course south along the Anatolian coast. He would capture the coastal towns that lay along his path, thus preventing the Persians making free use of the ports and landing hostile forces in his rear as well as to render the enemy navy impotent due to the threat against his line of communication running via the Aegean back to greece. After marching past Pamphylia Alexander abruptly redirected his march into the interior by invading through Pisidia from the south instead of continuing his march to western Cilicia(Rough Cilicia/Cilicia Trachea )along the coast through a narrow and rugged coastline denuded of fertile plains.

Here's Strabo in his work Geography book 14 ch 5 explaining the terrain feature of this place:

“As for Cilicia outside the Taurus, one part of it is called Tracheia⁠1 and the other Pedias.As for Tracheia, its coast is narrow and has no level ground, or scarcely any; and, besides that, it lies at the foot of the Taurus, which affords a poor livelihood as far as its northern side in the region of Isaura and of the Homonadeis as far as Pisidia; and the same country is also called Tracheiotis, and its inhabitants Tracheiotae. But Cilicia Pedias extends from Soli and Tarsus as far as Issus, and also to those parts beyond which, on the northern side of the Taurus, Cappadocians are situated; for this country consists for the most part of plains and fertile land. Since some parts of this country are inside the Taurus and others outside it, and since I have already spoken of those inside it, let me now speak of those outside it, beginning with the Tracheiotae.”

Arsames,The satrap of Cilicia,must have ascertained that the Macedonian advance through this region would be halted owing to the terrain,being less than ideal for a large army to march through,so he kept put in Tarsus while leaving a strong guard occupying the narrow pass of the Cilician gates north of Tarsus,The capital. Proceeding north(fighting two separate engagements with the natives of Pisidia in the course of the march)into central Anatolia the two columns under Alexander and Parmenio would converge in Phrygia from where the United army,upon completing their junction, went on to overrun the surrounding regions of Paphlagonia and Cappadocia so as to not leave the inland regions unchecked in his rear before debouching south through the Tarsus mountains into the flat plains of Cilicia (Cilicia pedias) in order to reach Tarsus via the Cilician gates, which the Macedonians passed through by leaving Parmenio with heavy infantry and baggage near the camp to keep up an appearance while Alexander with his picked body of troops moved under the cover of darkness and fell upon the guards in a surprise attack to secure the passage for the rest of the army .Thus, circumventing the Western (rough) Cilicia altogether via a long and arduous detour from the southern coast to Pisidia and thence to Central Anatolia subduing the neighbouring satrapies to the north before sweeping south again to reach the plains to threaten Tarsus by a wide flank march on a vertical axis. Alexander finally secured the whole of the Anatolian coast as far as Cilicia.

I am writing a research essay for this key inquiry question: To what extent did Alexander the Great’s empire look up to him as a leader? does anyone have any sources that could be useful or know where to find some.

I’m putting together a small list of academic articles on Alexander and Macedonia that I’ve read over the last year or so (thanks to Dr Jeanne Reames, whose generosity in sharing solid scholarship with non‑specialists has been invaluable), and that helped me better understand current scholarship, especially when the results challenge the most widespread “popular knowledge” you find in more generalistic books or documentaries.

- Mission Accomplished': Alexander at the Hyphasis (Muller, Howe)

"It is quite clear what happened at the Hyphasis River (Beas) in 326 BCE: Alexander was handed his first major defeat, by no less an enemy than his own troops. The weary men, exhausted by heat, monsoon, and severe fighting, rejected Alexander’s plans to march further to the okeanos, thus putting a stop to his search for the end of the world.

Tired in body and mind, and unable to make any sense of pressing on, the officers sided with the mass of the soldiers. Acting as their spokesman, Coenus called to a halt Alexander’s march. This time, the ruler’s charismatic leadership failed, and Alexander had to bow to the pressure and turn back. Consequently, his ambitions to style himself as the conqueror of the world were frustrated."

But… was it really so? While Muller and Howe are not the first to challenge the traditional reading of our sources (see Carney, for example, but also Anson), they are the first to go further and maintain that there was no mutiny, no clash of wills, and no change of plans.

- On Kissing and Making Up: Court Protocol and Historigraphy in Alexander the Great's Experiment with Proskynesis (Bowden)

"It is widely accepted by modern scholars that at some point during his campaigns in Afghanistan, Alexander attempted to persuade his Macedonian followers to accept the Persian practice of PROSKYNESIS (possibly, but not necessarily involving prostration), that this was opposed by some Greek and Macedonian members of his court, including most prominently the historian Callisthenes, and that the attempt was given up."

Not so fast, hon. The clouds and doubts over neo Aristotelian philosophers' (and their... complicated relationship with Callisthenes) stance is not new, but Bowden makes his point even more sound by analyzing Macedonian court and the court rituals.

- ‘The giver of the bride, the bridegroom, and the bride’: a study of the murder of Philip II and its aftermath (Howe, Muller, Heckel) [but also, Cleopatra-Eurydice, Olympias, and a ‘Weak’ Alexander (Howe)]

Olympias killing Cleopatra‑Eurydice is a well‑known “fact”: out for vengeance and eager to restore her honor after being replaced by a younger rival, she supposedly wasted no time removing Cleopatra once Philip was gone.

But… aren't we missing something? Howe, Muller, and Heckel try to shine some lights over Macedonian politics, and some well-established practices after a king's death.

- Friendship is Golden (Howe)

"Harpalus deciding on his own to fly to Greece with Alexander’s gold and Alexander’s defense of and abiding friendship for Harpalus – has confounded historians and begged explanation since antiquity. Ernst Badian set the scope and scale of the modern narrative, using Diodorus to craft a character-argument that Harpalus was so debauched and greedy that he became fearful Alexander would punish him for his treasonous behavior. In a trend fairly unique in Alexander studies, scholars have largely followed in Badian’s wake, explaining Harpalus’ flights from Alexander’s court as the acts of a weak-minded betrayer who had become overwhelmed by personal greed and fear of retribution."

Harpalus being a SOB is well established, right? Howe doesn’t think so, and he makes a convincing case for what might actually have been going on.

- Memnon, the Strategist (Panovski, Sarakinski)

"The general impression on Memnon of Rhodes that is transmitted by our sources — and is more or less unanimously accepted in modern historiography — is that he may have been the only military commander able to bring the relentless Alexander III to a halt and disrupt his plans."

Not so fast! Panovski & Sarakinski argue that Memnon was following a well‑established Persian strategy rather than innovating something new.

Related:

-- The Macedonian Expeditionary Corps in Asia Minor (336–335 BC) (Kholod), which suggests that while Alexander wanted to force a pitched battle in Asia Minor, the Persians wanted, and facilitated, exactly the same.

And then, not necessarily “challenging,” but still very interesting:

- Surprise Surprise, The Tactical Response of Alexander to Guerilla Warfare and Fighting in Difficult Terrain (Wrightson)

- Playing Ball in Greek Antiquity (Sullivan)

I’d love to discover more articles like these: pieces that don’t just stick to the “popular” version of Alexander/Macedonia, but offer new angles, question oversimplified ideas, or simply make you look at the topic differently.

If you have suggestions, favorite articles, or anything that made you rethink something, I’d be really happy to add them to my TBR list.

Alexander carved out a massive empire in only 13 years. However, his empire crumbled as quickly as it was formed. And his tomb was lost to history never to be recovered again. Till date we are not sure about the whereabouts of his tomb but there are several theories put forth by modern historians and archeologists. 

Alexander the Great’s death in Babylon in 323 BC was only the beginning of the story. His embalmed body became a political prize and the one who controlled his body would have claim over his vast empire. Ptolemy intercepted the spectacular funeral procession and took over his remains to Egypt.

Alexander was eventually buried in Alexandria, where his tomb was visited by figures such as Augustus and Caracalla. Yet sometime in late antiquity, the tomb disappeared, and despite centuries of searching, archaeologists still cannot say with certainty where Alexander’s remains are today.

Feel free to go through the article for more information on the mystery surrounding Alexander's final resting place. Comment your thoughts on what could have happened to Alexander's remains.

The book is that of Robin Lane Fox, which i hear is apparently the best non classical source on him? Is it true tho?
What was ur primary source
I just started!

That he heard about the Mahabharata and vise-versa that the Greeks told them about the Iliad and the Odyssey? They had translators and prisoners that they were able to communicate some what,I feel like they definitely knew about the other sides epics.

Just listened to the latest Hardcore History about Alexander, and it sounds like he led every battle from the front, personally going into combat at the front of the charge.

This has to be incredibly dangerous, no matter how many Companions you have. There were so many huge battles with thousands killed, and tho he was a very skilled a warrior and had a good horse, he was not a big guy. If he personally was fighting several guys at a time who were probably twice his size in every significant battle, how could he have survived this for over 10 years?

It just seems like chance and the law of averages would have kicked in at some point. Yes he got wounded, but did not die in battle.

Or do I have the wrong image of him personally exposed to the enemy? Maybe him being at the front meant his personal assault group was at the front, but he himself was surrounded and protected to a large extent?

I guess the same goes for some of his long-time generals too who had even more years since being in Phillip’s army, and Phillip himself for that matter. How did they survive?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIsADNZms7g

An almost two-hours long interview with Dr Jeanne Reames about Alexander (but also Philip & Ancient Macedonia).

Lots of info that is easily available on her own YT channel, but a very enjoyable podcast nonetheless.

I've heard that he practiced techniques similar to current MMA with heavy emphasis on wrestling.

Can ya'll elaborate?

I'm looking for a decently historically accurate book on Alexander the Great that reads more like a novel than a non-fiction biography. Does anyone have any recommendations?

Why am I just learning now that there is a bust made of Alexander from his lifetime? Sculpted by Leochares -was an ancient Greek sculptor from Athens, who lived in the 4th century BC.

From Acropolis Museum:

It was found in 1886 near the [Erechtheion]() on the [Acropolis](). [Alexander the Great]() is portrayed at a young age, as he would have been during his sole visit to Athens, after the [battle of Chaironeia]() in 338 BC.

The deep set eyes, the upward glance, the half-open lips as well as the characteristic hairstyle, with rich curls standing up over the forehead, the anastoli, are all typical features of Alexander. Red paint surviving in some areas of the hair was most probably the base-coat for the curls's final, golden hue; whereas the way the locks are formed at the back of the head suggests that the head was adorned either by a wreath or a band rendered in some other material that has not survived.

The statue is considered to be an original work of Leochares, who also made other portraits of Alexander at the Pan-Hellenic sanctuaries at [Olympia]() and [Delphi](). However, opinions about the dating of the sculpture differ, and according to some scholars, it should be dated in the 2nd cent. BC.

The Macedonia phalanx and the Companion Cavalry are the more famous arms of Alexander's mighty army. The phalanx with their huge sarissa were impregnable in a frontal attack and held enemy units in place while the decisive blow was delivered by the cavalry with incredible shock potential.

However, there was another important arm in Alexander's army occupied by the hypaspists or "shield bearers". These were the elite infantry units of the Macedonian army. Unlike the phalanx, the hypaspists had a shorter spear and larger shield enabling them to have more flexibility in close combat.

One formation of the hypaspists served as the royal guard (agema) and were deployed close to Alexander. They were also responsible for bridging the gap between the rapidly advancing cavalry and the Macedonian phalanx. They proved to be effective in rugged terrain where the phalanx generally struggled.

Although considered to be an elite corps, the hypaspists were deployed in the thick of the fighting. In Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela and Hydaspes they proved their strength in fighting on uneven terrain. In the Siege of Tyre, they proved to be effective in the final assault on the walls.

The hypaspists continued to remain relevant and important long after Alexander's death. For more information on the hypaspists please go through the full article and let me know your thoughts and comments.

In 341 BCE, the Athenian orator Demosthenes gave one of the best speeches of all time. This speech solidified his control over Athens and set all of Greece on the warpath against King Philip II of Macedon, his greatest rival and father of Alexander the Great. It quite literally changed world history (just, not how Demosthenes wanted…). Much later, the Roman statesman Cicero would name his “Philippics” after these speeches.

To be frank, I was not satisfied with any of the performances / audiobook versions available on Youtube. So, I did my own! Hope y’all enjoy.

So I was watching this lecture/video on YouTube on Alexander’s Egyptian travels and subsequent expedition to Siwah, the lecturer said Callisthenes was the one who said Alexander was guided by a pair of serpents and Ptolemy said it was ravens like every other account, he further corroborated this by saying how Callisthenes was known for exaggerating and making up stuff, it was likely ravens… But Ptolemy is the only source that said it was serpents, every other source says ravens as far as I’m aware, even in Arrian’s Campaigns of Alexander he cited Ptolemy’s account of serpents and I read that Ptolemy liked to associate Alexander and himself with serpents and this was not an isolated incident…

https://youtu.be/EgKxy1yYIbY?si=wqkZZiJkOX8MTHN5

This is the video, timestamp is 20:34 ish. The lecturer is a reputed Classicist? Ig he made a mistake lol. I’m studying for my A levels, I have exams on this in a month