Updating the location of the Granicus Battlefield

We like to believe that archaeologists merely scratch the soil to expose some remains of times past and ideally discover some gold and silver treasure. That is a very idealistic picture, far from the truth. 

Many people forget that excavations can take up to a lifetime to yield some results. Famous examples are men like Heinrich Schliemann in Troy, Arthur Evans in Crete, and more recently Prof. Marc Waelkens in Sagalassos and Manolis Andronicos in Vergina. However, the historical picture they created has been revised since. Schliemann erroneously dated the layers of Troy, Evans partially fabricated Crete by wishful thinking, and the occupant of Vergina’s Tomb is still disputed. 

[Picture from Arkeonews]

The Granicus Battlefield is no exception. Based on excavations and observations since the 19th century, the site of the battle had been identified north of the village of Çınarköprü on the River Biga, which in antiquity was known as the Granicus. That was the site I visited in 2007 (see: The Battle of the Granicus). It lies about 100 kilometers east of Çanakkale on the river that empties into the Propontis, modern Sea of Marmara. 

For the past 20 years or so, Prof. Reyhan Korpe, historian from Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University (ÇOMÜ), led the team that shed new light on the location of the battlefield. It is obvious that I have to revise my standpoint. 

His recent excavations using modern techniques, including geomorphologic surveys, exposed new evidence. For instance, the city of Hermaion, which Arrian calls Hermoton, was located on Alexander’s route to the Granicus. It could also be determined that the hitherto assumed site of the battle was a marsh in antiquity, making it unsuitable for an army to move, and that the course of the Granicus River had not changed much in the past two thousand years. Further investigation led to a hill to the east of the battlefield that has now been established near Gümüşçay, i.e., further south than previously reported. Said hill matches the spot where Greek mercenaries in Persian service were positioned, as documented in ancient sources. 

Now, 18 years after my last visit to the Granicus, the area of the battlefield has shifted further south. In my eyes, this new enlarged location makes more sense since there is more space on the wide plain for both armies to maneuver. I hope the river banks are not as steep as near Çınarköprü, where I wondered how the phalanx was able to stay in formation during the crossing. I may well have to return to the Granicus soon! 

                                                  [Picture from Arkeolojikhaber]

It is interesting to read Prof. Reyhan Korpe’s analysis of this part of the Troad region, where he has identified nine ancient cities. We tend to forget that this area was one of the richest in the Persian Empire – hence the numerous tumuli that dot the landscape. No wonder the Persians meant to stop Alexander’s advance immediately after he landed in Asia Minor.

It is worth mentioning that the overall landscape of the Granicus Battlefield has retained much of the appearance it would have had in Alexander’s days, as the agricultural activities have not led to any substantial destruction. 

Macedonian swords set against history

As mentioned in an earlier post (see: Alexander’s battle outfit), the Macedonians basically used two types of swords. The straight sword with a double-edged blade, which was most popular, was about 60-70 cm long. The blade was exceptionally efficient because of the swelling toward the sword’s tip. It added weight and momentum to each blow. It was used by cavalry and infantry alike, as it functioned for hacking and stabbing. 

The kopis, or saber-shaped sword with the crooked hilt, was less common. The blade was 40-60 cm long, and only the curved side had a cutting edge. The kopis was more effective for fights on horseback since the rider could deliver a heavy blow from above. 

Sources tell us that the Cyprian King of Citium (ancient Larnaca) gave Alexander a masterly executed sword, which was exceptionally light and well-tempered (see: The role of Cyprus in Alexander’s campaign). 

Quality swords were widespread among Alexander’s commanders and even common troops. Several memorable encounters have been reported by our historians. The most striking one was when Cleitus, with a single blow, severed the arm and shoulder of a Persian attacking Alexander at the Granicus. The Paeonian cavalry leader Ariston used his sword to behead the Persian leader Satropates during a skirmish near the Tigris River. 

The kopis were handled by the Macedonians at the Hydaspes to slash at the elephants’ trunks. Ptolemy drove his sword through the thigh of a local chief during the Indian expedition, and Alexander cut off the hand of his Arab assassin with one stroke of his sword during the siege of Gaza. The Macedonian tradition of handling weapons with high cutting capacity is still alive in 276 BC when King Pyrrhus inflicted such a blow to his adversary that he cleaved his opponent in two parts, falling to either side! 

Now we may wonder where and how all these swords were made. Cyprus was known for its quality weaponry, but did the artisans accompany the Macedonians into Asia, or did they train a selected number of people in this specific craftsmanship? Either theory is plausible. 

There is, however, the case of Porus’ gift. After the Battle of the Hydaspes, King Porus gave Alexander a precious sword. This story leads us to another source, Wootz Steel (the name is a corruption of ‘ukku’), a well-kept secret amongst the metallurgists in India. The name first appeared when Alexander received a gift of over 2500 kg of ‘white iron’, a kind of steel that originated in India millennia before reaching Europe. 

Wootz steel is a type of crucible steel made using a clay crucible. The vessel was closed and heated for several days to a temperature of 1300-1400 degrees Celsius. In the process, the quality of the product acquired high ductility, high impact strength, and reduced brittleness. After a slow cooling, the Wootz ingots were ready. Archaeologists discovered an industrial steel center from around the 3^rd century BC in the southern state of Tamil Nadu. 

How was this new technology received in the Macedonian camp? It is hard to imagine that Alexander did not explore or use the possibilities of this Wootz steel. He always was a ringleader when confronted with new inventions and improvements in warfare. The next time we hear about this revolutionary steel is that Indians had a monopoly over the production and export of Wootz steel from the 3^rd to the 17^th century, reaching from the Roman Empire in the West to China in the East. 

In the Middle Ages, Damascus became the main supplier of the famous Damascene swords, which is only another name for weaponry made using Wootz steel. 

By the 8^th century, manufacturing in India had spread throughout Central Asia, where the Vikings had established trade posts to exchange their furs and slaves over Eurasia. Hoards of Arab dirhams have been found in Scandinavia, documenting these trades. As a result, by the 9^th century, the Vikings produced high-quality Ulfberht swords, made of crucible steel known as Wootz steel. 

[Picture from Ulfbeht sword - Credits: Secrets of the Viking sword]

The blades of Viking swords were generally 70 to 90 centimeters long and 5-6 centimeters wide. The so-called Ulfberht swords carried the inscription +VLFBERH+T, which may be linked to some religious invocation rather than the maker’s signature. The earliest known specimen was created in the 9^th century and was one of the heaviest (1.9 kg) and longest (102 cm) Viking swords. It is exhibited at the Museum of Cultural History in Oslo. Another surviving example is the sword of Saint Stephen from the 10^th century, which was the coronation sword of the Hungarian King Stephen. It still has its walrus-tooth hilt. 

The so-called Lincoln sword from the same era is one of only two known swords bearing the inscription +LEUFRIT, also made of crucible (most probably Wootz) steel. It was found near Monks Abbey in Lincolnshire, UK, in 1848. 

It is noteworthy that the science behind the production of Wootz steel was only understood in the 20^th century! From a technological point of view, this means that the metallurgists of ancient India were far, really far ahead of their time! 

Unfortunately, history has, to my knowledge, not linked the weaponry from Cyprus to the Wootz steel swords made in India. Consequently, we still don’t know how Alexander acted and reacted to Porus’ highly prized gift. I can’t imagine that Alexander did nothing to explore this newly acquired knowledge.

Does age matter?

Writing about Alexander over the years, I have been handling chronological dates for his whereabouts in the correct time frame. There is, however, another approach to consider and that is Alexander’s age. 

We know he became king at the age of twenty and started his invasion of Asia at the age of twenty-two. He died a month short of his 33^rd birthday. All his marches, sieges, battles, and fighting are condensed within this last period of roughly ten years. 

A comparison with any modern monarchy is impossible because there are hardly any kings left and they no longer go to war at the head of their army. To compare Alexander with young men his age today is out of the question also simply because life and the circumstances of living are too far apart. 

Alexander has been taught by Aristotle but again this kind of education cannot be identified with the teaching of a young man in our modern world. I believe that even Philip, although he intended to do what was best for his son, underestimated the vastness of Aristotle’s knowledge. Alexander was meant to rise above Philip because he understood how to draw from Aristotle’s vast database (to use modern terminology) and merge it expertly with his innate infallible instinct - his genius. 

However, Philip may well have realized the potential of his 16-year-old son when he entrusted him with the seal of Macedonia while campaigning against Byzantium. The young prince honored his assignment as Regent by successfully putting down the Maedi revolt on the country’s northern border. 

Two years later, Philip put his son in command of his cavalry at the Battle of Chaironeia. Alexander did more than his share and annihilated the entire Theban Band, all three hundred of them! 

We don’t know how much time the young prince spent among the soldiers growing up in Pella, but I think it is safe to assume it was a lot. Leading the small contingent against the Maedi and the cavalry in Chaironeia speaks volumes. An army has that instinctive flair to recognize a true leader, one they can and will trust. 

This trust would only grow when Alexander became king after his father was murdered. In the next two years, he successfully led his troops against the Illyrians and the Thracians to secure his northern borders, sacked the city of Thebes in retribution for its betrayal, and confirmed his position as Hegemon of Greece as per the Treaty of Corinth. Alexander could never have contemplated his campaign in Asia without the full trust and commitment of his army. 

He crossed the Hellespont shortly before his 22^nd birthday and fought the Persian army for the first time at the Granicus River. Later that summer, he marched to Sardes and took Ephesos, Priene, Miletus, Didyma, and Halicarnassus. Alexander spent the following winter in Lycia, after which he conquered Phaselis and Perge. 

When he was 23 years old, he headed north to Sagalassos and from there to Gordion where he cut the knot. Crossing Cappadocia, he returned to the shores of the Mediterranean. At Tarsus, he fell sick with a fever, which incapacitated him for several weeks. By the end of the year, he was engaged in the Battle of Issus, his first personal confrontation with King Darius. 

In two years, Alexander fought two major battles (see: The Battle of the Granicus and The Battle of Issus, where Alexander and Darius faced each other for the first time), besieged two cities, Miletus and Halicarnassus, and occupied all the major ports in Asia Minor. In our modern world, this means that he crossed all of Turkey. 

At the age of 24, he laid siege on two more cities, Tyre (building a mole in the process) and Gaza. His reception in Egypt was that of a liberator and he was soon acclaimed as their new Pharaoh - a title that automatically made him a god in the eyes of the Egyptians. At the western end of the Nile Delta, he founded his first Alexandria, a city that still exists and prospers today! 

Many more sieges and battles were to follow in Central Asia and India. We almost take them for granted, despite that every siege and every battle came with its own technicalities and challenges. Alexander faced many hardships as he traveled through deserts, waded through countless rivers, and crossed mountains as high as those of the Hindu Kush! 

The three years Alexander spent in Sogdiana and Bactria, from his 27^th to his 30^th birthday, were an uninterrupted succession of skirmishes and fights in guerilla wars he was totally unfamiliar with. The events culminated with his victory at the Battle of the Hydaspes against the Indian King Porus. By then, he and his men had covered some 28,000 kilometers, creating many new Alexandrias in the process. 

Although Alexander is usually depicted sitting on his horse, we have to keep in mind that he moved at the pace of his foot soldiers. Riding bareback was not comfortable, not for the rider and not for the horse (see: No saddles and no stirrups for Alexander’s cavalry). 

It is impossible to imagine anyone covering such a distance on foot. It would imply walking an average of 2,800 kilometers a year, ten years in a row! Let us keep in mind that many of his troops were veterans of his father’s days, men in their fifties, sixties, and even seventies! Not a leisurely trip for the fainthearted. 

Speaking of walking: how many pairs of shoes, boots, and sandals would the Macedonians have worn out? Providing new ones for some 40,000 men or more would have implied production on an industrial scale! Maybe we should believe the sources suggesting that the soldiers fought and walked sections of the route barefoot?

Sadly, Alexander died far too young, and so did Hephaistion, but men like Ptolemy and Seleucos lived to the ages of 84 and 77 respectively. Age clearly is not everything!

How Macedonian is a Macedonian shield?

When talking about Macedonian shields, our thoughts automatically turn to those carrying a 16-rayed star like the one on the lid of King Philip's golden larnax displayed at the Museum of Vergina. 

What should be simple and straightforward, in reality, isn't. 

The first king to use the Macedonian sun emblem may be Archelaus (413-399 BC), i.e., well before Philip II came to power. In Alexander's days, the number of sun rays varied from eight to twelve or sixteen. Alternatively, the center of the shield could be a disc that remained blank or was filled with a Gorgon's head, the face of Heracles, etc. Such a disc was usually surrounded by a varying number of crescents. Other shields may seem unadorned, but it has been documented that many were painted only. That would make sense when looking at the row of armor and shields lining the street in Dion. The monument was commissioned by Alexander after his victory at the Granicus. 

As I have come across many examples of shield decorations, either on paintings, reliefs, coins, or other works of art, it might be interesting to highlight some examples. 

For a start, today's flag of the Republic of Macedonia shows a sun with 16 rays, the so-called "Vergina-Sun." 

A bucranium found in Apollonia Pontica, modern Sozopol, Bulgaria, shows an eight-rayed star, which leads that country to claim that the origin of the "Vergina-Sun" is theirs (see: The Origin of the Macedonian star was Thracian?)

The excavations in Albania have so far yielded several examples of shields they call Illyrian but look very Macedonian at first glance. I was told that the difference with a Macedonian shield was the curving. Whether that is true or not, I don't know (see: Looking for Illyrian remains in Albania).

At the small Museum of Apollonia, Albania, I saw my first Illyrian shield from the 4th century BC that looked very much like the Macedonian one. A series of triple crescents surrounds the central Medusa head with shiny eyes.

The Skanderberg Museum proudly exhibits an Illyrian shield with similar half-crescents but with a six-rayed star at its center.

Two Illyrian shields are embossed on a leather belt buckle at the Archaeological Museum of Tirana. In this case, we see a central disc surrounded by respectively four and five larger double crescents. 

From the same period, a striking limestone mold for a leather shield cover was found in Egypt. It was made for the soldiers of Ptolemy in 330 BC. It has typical Macedonian features with a central Medusa head surrounded by triple concentric circles holding a small eight-rayed Macedonian star (see: Alexander's Legacy. Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam). 

The Tomb of Agios Athanasios from the era of Alexander has been attributed to a Macedonian nobleman. Although looted in antiquity, the narrow frieze above the entrance holds precious information about Macedonian daily life and its army in blazing colors. The lively scenes have been photographed in detail and digitally restored for all to examine at the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki (see: The Macedonian Tomb of Agios Athanasios in Thessaloniki). Of particular interest are the three shields, two of which show an eight-rayed star surrounded by a broad-colored rim. These shields are painted, as are other examples on the walls of grave monuments. It remains an intriguing question whether shields used in combat were painted as well. Color coding may have contributed to bringing soldiers of the same unit together. Still, I fail to see how Alexander's Macedonians would have carried paint to maintain the distinctive coding during the many skirmishes and battles.

A unique set of shields can be admired inside the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles in Lefkadia, Greece (see: Alexander's schooling at Mieza). The one painted in the north lunette has a blue eight-rayed star at its center and is edged with a crown of leaves. The shield in the south lunette is defined as the 'familiar Macedonian' shield with an empty disc at its center and surrounded by eight crescents. The tomb is dated to c.250 BC. 

Another specimen is a bronze shield from the collection of the Getty Museum in Malibu, California. It definitely has a Macedonian look because of the central six-rayed star (see: A magnificent Greek shield). The inscription reveals that it was made in Pontus on the Black Sea for King Pharnaces I. Since we do not know when exactly Pharnaces died, we can only assume it was made between 160 and 154 BC, when his brother Mithridates IV succeeded him to the throne. 

From the cities that disappeared under the ashes of Mount Vesuvius after the eruption of 79 AD, I like the fresco from Boscoreale, now at the Archaeological Museum of Naples (see: Fresco of a Macedonian at Boscoreale). The painting, based on a mid-3rd century BC original, was retrieved from the Villa of P. Fannius Synistor and shows a scene in which the principal figure sits next to an eight-rayed Macedonian shield resting at his feet. According to some sources, it would depict Antigonus II Gonatas (the son of Demetrios I of Macedonia) with his mother, Phila, or simply be the personification of Macedonia and Asia/Persia.

Another magnificent fresco is still in situ at the Villa of Poppea, Nero's wife, in nearby Oplontis. A life-size view of the Temple of Apollo with eight-rayed Macedonian shields painted between the columns covers a wall in the large sitting room. Wow! 

Later rulers and countries held Alexander and Macedonia in great esteem, and the Romans' admiration is an obvious example!

How important was Barsine?

The question is actually double: How important was Barsine for Alexander? And how important was Barsine in the geopolitical world of her time? 

Authors from antiquity have not spent much ink on her, and she is only mentioned when she comes to the foreground, which isn’t often.  

Barsine was the daughter of Artabazus II, satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia in northwestern Turkey. Artabazus’ first wife was from Rhodes and was the sister of two capable generals, Mentor and Memnon. 

Artabazus revolted against the newly appointed Persian king, Artaxerxes III Ochus. Artaxerxes had ordered the dismantling of his mercenary army, which the satrap did not accept. Artabazus and his family (including Memnon) went into exile and found refuge at the court of Philip II in Pella. Barsine, who was fluent in Greek, must have met the younger Alexander during their stay. We don’t know the nature of their encounters or conversations, but we may safely assume that Alexander inquired about life and customs in Persia. After all, he impressed the Persian envoys at a young age as he questioned them pending his father’s return to the Palace. 

Three years later, Artabazus reconciled with the Persian king, and he returned to Persia, taking Barsine and his family with him. That happened in 343 BC, about one year after Aristotle arrived on the scene to teach Prince Alexander. Over the years, the entire company probably met the philosopher along with other distinguished visitors to the Macedonian court. 

Barsine married her uncle Mentor, a Greek mercenary general in Persian service, while she still was young. Mentor died soon afterward, leaving her with a daughter. In those circumstances, Memnon took her as his wife that same year, 338 BC. He already had several sons from a previous marriage. We can safely assume that Barsine’s opinion in these matters didn’t count. What’s more, she became a second mother to her husband's (teenage?) sons. Just as Mentor, Memnon led an army of mercenaries for the Great King. Having a lovely wife familiar with the Greek language and culture, no doubt, added to his prestige. 

In 334 BC, when Alexander, now king of Macedonia, faced the Persian army at the Granicus River, Memnon fought on the enemy’s side. Although the battle was lost, the general’s capabilities were recognized by Darius, and he was appointed as commander of the Persian fleet in the Aegean. This honor may be a questionable trust because, in exchange, Barsine had to stay at King Darius’ court with her father, Artabazus. 

A year later, during the siege of Lesbos Memnon fell ill and died. Barsine was widowed for a second time. 

Around that time, Alexander had reached Issus where he defeated Darius in November 333 BC. When Parmenion rode to Damascus to take hold of the Persian treasury, the baggage train, and the women of the aristocrats, he met Barsine and brought her to Alexander. 

Her relationship with Alexander lasted five or six years. I wonder whether she traveled with Darius’ mother, wife, and children, who had been taken in Issus. Alexander was constantly on the move, conquering the eastern Mediterranean and Egypt and marching to Babylon and Susa, where he finally installed the Persian Royal Family. Barsine stayed at Alexander’s side, and we can only guess which quarters she occupied when the army was on the road. 

During that time, Artabazus remained faithful to Darius until the Great King was murdered by Bessus, who then proclaimed himself the new king of Persia. Artabazus refused to submit to Bessus and left, taking his mercenaries with him. He joined Alexander, who rewarded him with the satrapy of Bactria. Here he was reunited with Barsine. 

She is mentioned again by ancient historians about 327 BC at the end of Alexander’s campaign in Sogdia. However, it is unclear in which order the events unfolded precisely. 

The fact is that Barsine became pregnant and gave birth to Heracles. Alexander never recognized his son, his first-born, although he must have loved him, giving him the name of his ancestors. Is it possible that Alexander resented Barsine for having Heracles without his consent? She and little Heracles stood in his way for his bigger plans, meaning to marry Princess Stateira as – probably – agreed with Sisygambis. Barsine must have known of those plans, so she had no excuse. 

It is, in any case, a strange coincidence that Alexander almost immediately married Roxane, the daughter of a local chieftain. This was not love at first sight, as most authors claim. It was a purely political move to end the three-year wars through Bactria and Sogdia. 

Artabazus requested to be relieved of his duties in Bactria because of his old age. Alexander accepted his resignation and Artabazus left for Pergamon taking Barsine and the little boy with him. Artabazus seems to have produced an elegant way to retire, and, at the same time, he created the best solution for Barsine since there was no longer a place for her at Alexander’s court. She had to say goodbye to the snow-topped mountains of the Hindu Kush after sharing so many miles with the Macedonian troops and her great love.

Barsine met Alexander again in 324 BC when she attended the mass wedding at Susa. Her daughter from Mentor married Nearchus. Two of her sisters were also given in marriage to Alexander’s companions, but the sources (Plutarch and Arrian) are at odds with each other about the names. 

Hardly a year later, Alexander died in Babylon. I wonder whether Barsine was still in nearby Susa, close enough to say her goodbyes to the man she once loved? If she returned to Pergamon after the wedding, she could never make it to Babylon in time. 

She and Heracles quietly spent the next decade in Pergamon. In 310 BC, Cassander as king of Macedonia, summoned Alexander IV, Alexander’s 14-year-old legitimate son with Roxane, to Pella to be poisoned. 

The news traveled fast and eventually reached Pergamon, as poor Heracles was now at the center stage in the drama of the Succession War. Initially, general Polyperchon had been defending the cause of the now 17-year-old Heracles, but in 309 BC, he fell into Cassander’s vicious trap. Cassander made many great promises of money and power in exchange for eliminating Heracles. For one hundred talents, Polyperchon tricked Heracles into accepting an invitation for dinner and poisoned him. Barsine, who had traveled with her son, was murdered shortly afterward, although some sources pretend she was murdered simultaneously. Sadly, Heracles didn’t even receive a proper burial in the cemetery of his ancestors, and neither did Barsine. 

Now about my questions formulated at the beginning of my post. How important was Barsine for Alexander? Well, she was important enough to keep her at his side for about six years. All this time, she managed not to get pregnant. Barsine knew that Alexander dearly wanted and needed an heir during those years of intimacy. She also knew that his plan was to marry a Persian princess. Barsine spoiled this by wanting a child of her own. Alexander had his principles and stuck to them. Nobody, not even sweet and gentle Barsine, was allowed to interfere. His sudden marriage to Roxane may be seen as a statement toward Barsine. Historians say Alexander fell in love with Roxane because of her beauty. In my mind, her beauty may be a nice bonus, but it was not the main reason. 

How important was Barsine in the geopolitical world of her time? Barsine was a beneficial source of information about the Persian court, Persian habits, and culture. After all, she had lived at least three years at the court of King Darius. Speaking Greek was an important asset to avoid misunderstandings. Alexander was an excellent judge of character, and having met Artabazus at Pella, he knew that he was a man of his word and could be trusted. Artabazus was loyal to Alexander. Having his daughter at the king’s side was a warranty that worked both ways. Barsine and her father contributed to Alexander’s larger plan. The birth of Heracles disturbed this goal – something Alexander never could or would accept. Barsine no longer fit his purpose in the new world he was building.

Who is Alexander? Part II

[Continued from Part 1 - Who is Alexander?]

Alexander heads for Asia at twenty-two, leaving Macedonia in the hands of his father’s trusted general Antipater as Regent. He sets out with an army of about 40,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. The gods are with him all the way. The first opposition happens in a tiny corner of Asia Minor, on the banks of the Granicus River. Darius III, King of Persia, King of Kings, believes that his presence is not required and merely delegates the confrontation to a mercenary in his service, a Greek on top of that, called Memnon. Well, Memnon, although a highly skilled general and Alexander’s most formidable opponent, is defeated. Nothing can stop Alexander now from taking one city after another, one port after another, all along the west coast of today’s Turkey. 

A year later, Alexander will face King Darius in person at the Pinarus River near Issus. The Persian army was huge compared to the Macedonian, but it was outmaneuvered during the first minutes of the battle. King Darius panics and flees into the backcountry. By leaving the battlefield, Alexander automatically emerges victorious. 

Both kings meet again, two years onwards, in a decisive confrontation on Persian soil near Arbela, a place better known as Gaugamela. It is a fight worthy of David and Goliath, where Alexander, with his 50,000 men, stands up against Darius’ troops, which may be 250,000 and has been exaggerated to 500,000. Whatever the numbers, his opponent counted many times more soldiers than his own force! From the tactical point of view, the battle proves to be such prowess that it is still taught at the Military Academy of West Point today. Alexander attacked an empire that was ten times bigger than his! 

Alexander’s accomplishments reached far beyond winning battles. He took on the organization of the entire enterprise, working out the logistics, relentlessly inspiring his army, and caring for all involved. Everyone looked up at him for guidance. 

Alexander’s empire extended from Greece to India and from Uzbekistan to Egypt at the height of his power. His army and baggage train in Asia must have counted at least one hundred thousand men. This mass of people inevitably included merchants, peddlers, blacksmiths, tailors, stone cutters, shipbuilders, entertainers, carpenters, cooks, architects, masons, road builders, and whores. Alexander managed to take his dismantled ships and catapult towers with him on the road so he could assemble them whenever needed. The word prefab was invented only eons later. 

The king moved all these people through the scorching deserts of the Karakum and the Gedrosian. He took them over the snow-capped mountains of the Zagros and the Hindu Kush. Also across swift-running rivers such as the Euphrates and Tigris, Oxus and Jaxartes, Indus, and entire Punjab. Just try to picture that crowd of soldiers, horses, followers, and equipment trudging through uncharted territories. It is dazzling! 

Alexander organized a government adapted to each and every land and tribe he conquered. He founded cities at strategic trade-road crossings, many of which still exist today. His task was absolutely colossal, and Alexander always was the driving force. Alexander also was a visionary, one we would love to have around today. He welded the world into one country.

Neither his Macedonians nor the Greeks were ready to comprehend the grandeur of his conquests, their vastness or scale. He made excellent use of the accumulated treasuries kept in the Royal Persian vaults, minting vast amounts of gold, silver, and bronze coins. The coins had Alexander’s image stamped on them, which was a somewhat new concept for until then, only gods were worthy of such a favor. The Alexander coins were known and accepted all over the empire. It was the euro of antiquity! 

Finally, there is Alexander’s legacy, i.e., the impact of Greek fashion, culture, and art on the occupied territories – a phenomenon that went down into history as Hellenism. From Athens to the Indus, the official language was Greek and remained so for nearly one thousand years until Islam took over with the use of Arabic. We owe it to Hellenism that the first statues of Buddha were made, that the first Library of Alexandria in Egypt was created, and that the Romans rose to power. Christianity spread so smoothly thanks to the usage of Greek, and the Renaissance is nothing less than a renewed connection with Hellenism. 

All of Alexander’s cities were built according to the Hippodamian plan with right-angled streets, including familiar buildings like temples, gymnasiums, agoras, theaters, and stadiums. Alexander’s love for games, sports competitions, and theatre contests with playwriters and actors traveling thousands of miles is another tradition that was continued for centuries deep into Central Asia and India. 

Our world would not be what it is today had it not been for Alexander. No other man in history impacted the world as much as Alexander the Great. Nobody conquered and ruled at the level of Alexander’s high standards, and nobody ever will.

Please consult my book for the full story of his conquests and achievements: "Alexander the Greatwas here, and so was I.”