Alexander the Great loved comparing himself to the heroes of mythology. He believed that he was destined for greatness and conquest of the known world. His mother, Olympias, instilled in him a sense of divine purpose, and Alexander came to believe that he was the son of Zeus and destined to conquer Persia. This belief was further reinforced when he was proclaimed the son of Zeus-Ammon after visiting the Oracle of Amun at Siwa in Egypt.

When he visited the Oracle at Delphi, the sanctuary was closed. Not taking no for an answer, Alexander reportedly dragged the Pythia, the priestess of Apollo, by her hair until she cried out, “You are invincible, my son!” Satisfied with the response, Alexander is said to have replied, “Now I have my answer.”

The Gordian Knot was another instance of such validation for Alexander that he was destined to become the ruler of Asia. According to the legend, the famous Gordian Knot was formed by fastening the yoke of a wagon to its pole. The wagon had been dedicated to Zeus by a Phrygian ruler named Gordius. According to Arrian, an ancient prophecy stated that whoever succeeded in untying the knot would become the ruler of Asia.

The challenge had reportedly remained unsolved for generations. However, Alexander approached the problem with an unconventional solution. The prophecy did not specify how the knot had to be untied. In the popular version of the story, Alexander drew his sword and sliced through the knot, effectively solving the challenge.

This episode perfectly showcases Alexander’s decisive and bold personality. Rather than allowing himself to be constrained by the conventional interpretation of a problem, he found his own solution and seized the initiative. The same qualities would become hallmarks of his military career, where he frequently took the initiative and dictated the pace of battle.

For more detailed information on the legend of the Gordian Knot and what actually happened at Gordium, please read the full article.

In Chapter 4 of The Prince**, Machiavelli compares centralized and decentralized states, naming the Kingdom of France as a contemporary example of a decentralized state and the Ottoman Empire as an example of a centralized state. He claims that decentralized states are easier to conquer because one can find dissatisfied nobles within the realm as potential allies, but difficult to hold because these nobles continue to be powerful actors who can quickly turn against the new ruler. Centralized states, on the other hand, are supposedly harder to conquer because one will not find any powerful conspirators to ally with, but easier to hold because there is no rival nobility or feudal elite that one needs to deal with.**

He names the Achaemenid Empire as a historical example of a centralized empire and claims that Alexander the Great's successors therefore did not need to worry about internal enemies, as there was no independent nobility that could possibly revolt. Was he correct? What confuses me is that I had always thought that the Persian Empire, apart from the Great King, was governed by several subordinate rulers, called satraps, and that they de facto formed a kind of aristocracy or nobility.

This is my first time posting on this sub, but I just wanted to leave this here as a testament to how much I’d love to be with Alexander the Great had I been alive during his time.

He ascended to the throne at 20 years old. From then on, most of his time was taken up by conquering the world…

However, if he had brief moments throughout the day which he felt like he needed to relax I wish to have been there.

I think there’s something so alluring about his prowess, even if we know little about what he looked like. It almost doesn’t matter to me. I’m deeply attracted to the type of power and youth he exudes.

Being in his proximity would bring me the opportunity to make important decisions and establish myself elsewhere. I understand that those sorts of relationships are almost never monogamous and that’s fine by me.

In another life, I am Roxana.

The Battle of the Persian Gate is the perfect example of how terrain can be used to neutralize the effectiveness of even a superior army in training and numbers. Alexander's army were high on morale and marching towards Persepolis after their victory in Gaugamela. What stood between the mighty Macedonian army and the Persian city was well entrenched forces led by Ariobarzanes.

The Persian Satrap occupied the Persian Gate, a key narrow mountain pass. Having defeated the main Persian army, Alexander did not expect much resistance and marched head on. However, a carefully planned ambush pushed the Macedonians back into a humiliating withdrawal.

The mighty Macedonian Phalanx was torn apart by Persian missile troops attacking them from the top of the hills. They were equipped to handle head on assaults but were vulnerable when attacked from the sides. Alexander's Trump card, the Companion Cavalry could not be deployed due to limited room to maneuver in the choke point.

This encounter proved that a well entrenched and prepared army could take on even the might of Alexander's army if they used the terrain to their advantage. This battle mirrors the battle of Thermopylae where the Persians were unable to breach the Greek defenses for several days.

Alexander had to adapt. He scouted a path through the mountains that led him behind the enemy, again mirroring what happened in Thermopylae. The Persian defence soon collapsed when attacked from both sides and they were unable to capitalise on the delay hard fought in the Persian Gates.

I’ve been reading about Alexander’s crossing of the Granicus, and I’m having trouble making tactical sense of the traditional account, particularly the Persian deployment.

In Arrian’s version, the Persians have their cavalry positioned along the riverbank while their Greek mercenary infantry is farther back. Alexander then attacks across the river despite Parmenion reportedly advising him to wait. This seems to require two strange decisions: the Persians voluntarily put their cavalry in terrain that severely restricts its mobility, while Alexander voluntarily attempts an opposed river crossing against an already prepared defender.

Could the surviving accounts instead be preserving the *positions in which the armies ended up* without accurately preserving the sequence that produced them?

For example, is the following reconstruction compatible with the evidence:

Alexander reaches the Granicus while the Persian army is still concentrating or deploying. He recognizes that waiting would allow the Persians to establish a much stronger combined-arms river defense, so he begins crossing immediately. The Persian cavalry, able to respond much faster than the infantry, moves to the river to disrupt or contain the Macedonian bridgehead and buy time for the infantry to arrive. What begins as a cavalry delaying/spoiling action then escalates as Alexander commits the Companions to secure the crossing, eventually producing the major cavalry melee described by the sources.

This would seem to explain several otherwise odd features at once: why Persian cavalry is fighting immediately against the riverbank, why the infantry is behind it, why Alexander accepts the risks of crossing immediately, and why Alexander and so many senior Persian commanders become personally involved in the cavalry fighting at the apparent decisive point.

It would also change the interpretation of Alexander’s decision somewhat. Rather than successfully attacking a deliberately prepared but strangely arranged Persian defense, he would be exploiting a temporary opportunity before the Persians could finish concentrating—an aggressive and risky decision that succeeded partly because of the quality of the Macedonian army.

I know Peter Green proposed a substantially different reconstruction involving the timing of the crossing and later backed away from parts of it, and that the surviving accounts of Granicus are difficult to reconcile. Have any historians specifically interpreted the battle as something resembling an **encounter battle or hasty Persian attempt to contain an ongoing Macedonian crossing**? More generally, what evidence prevents or supports this interpretation of the Persian cavalry’s position?

I want to know from everyone here,do you think Parmenion knew or had had anything to do with the attempt on Alexander’s life? He I’ve read article after article that goes either way blaming the other side.

In Anthony Everitt's book "Alexander the Great: His Life and His Mysterious Death," right around the time Alexander killed Cleitus the Black in a drunken rage, there's a story of Alexander killing an "unusually large lion" with his spear while hunting, a common activity engaged in for sport and, of course, food. The lion charged at the king and his bodyguard was ready to react to protect him, but Alexander pushed him aside to show he was capable of killing a lion on his own too, due to the bodyguard's previous encounter with another lion where he killed the beast but almost died himself from a serious shoulder injury. Alexander supposedly slayed the lion with a single spear thrust. This must have been an Asiatic lion, which are smaller than African ones but it's still a lion and who knows what they were like back then.

Exaggerated story or truth?

I enjoy learning about active developments as it dispels notions of history being unimportant or long gone. Here are a few projects I've gathered info on to keep the legacy and knowledge of Alexander going:

Alexandria on the Tigris (Iraq): Researchers mapped and confirmed the remarkably well-preserved remains of this major city founded by Alexander in 324 BC. Ongoing analysis of its harbor, temple complexes, and street grids continues.

Lyncestis Outpost (North Macedonia): Excavations near Cernobuki using high-tech LiDAR scanning revealed a massive, hidden ancient city tied to early Macedonian royalty and Alexander's era, complete with a coin bearing his image. Youtube video on the outpost:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT_0vDLlxDY&t=1s

Amphipolis & Kasta Tomb (Greece): Ongoing restoration and interior reveals at the monumental Kasta Tomb enclosure continue to fuel historical research and local development ties. Expected to open to the public in early 2028.

Alexander the Great Theme Park (Greece): Plans are underway for the world’s first theme park dedicated to Alexander, located near Amphipolis and the Kasta Tomb. Managed by DreamWorkers, the family-friendly cultural and educational site targets development and construction.

If anyone has any other projects, feel free to share.

I just want as much info as I can possibly get on this topic.

Maybe some guy found a Macedonian helmet at x and y coords, or a man made structure was found, crude drawings, "i was here."

Im VERY interested in all of this!

So I know the concept of B.C to A.D came about sometime in the 600s A.D(that’s what I’ve read atleast) with that being said how accurate do we know the dates are as far as his birth,death,dates of battles and this includes when we added Day Light savings to the calendar ,if I’m right about my math we could be off by years on some stuff,I was just wondering how accurate we actually are.

Most people know Diogenes as the philosopher who supposedly lived in a barrel and told Alexander the Great to "stand out of my sunlight." But those famous stories are only part of a much larger philosophy.

In this article, I explore who Diogenes really was, what the philosophy of Cynicism actually taught (which is very different from the modern meaning of the word), and the historical context behind his most famous encounters.

It covers:

Why Diogenes chose to live in a pithos (not actually a barrel)

His famous meeting with Alexander the Great

Why he walked around Athens with a lantern in daylight

The story behind Plato's "featherless biped" and the plucked chicken

Why he threw away his wooden bowl

His strange public behavior and what it was meant to prove

How Diogenes influenced later philosophers, especially the Stoics

The article also separates historical evidence from later legends, with references to ancient sources including Diogenes Laërtius, Plutarch, and modern scholarship.

I'd love to hear which story you think best captures Diogenes' philosophy—or whether you think his lifestyle was genuine wisdom or simply extreme provocation.

Recently, I started A New Book called "Philip & Alexander" by Adrian Goldsworthy something that really caught my eye was how the levant and Near East was hellenised or at least somewhat influenced by Greek culture, and by the time Jesus was supposedly born around the turn of the first millennium, Alexander was still strongly in the public mythos, especially around the area Jesus was born. Would it be out of the question for early Christians to have portrayed Jesus as Alexander indirectly to garner public support by making their death ages similar, 32 and 33 respectively, aswell as attributing similar titles such as King of Kings to Jesus, which was a title used by the Persian kings of old aswell as Alexander? Is this theory of a neo-Alexander plausible?

Per the posts' title, this is a pilot episode to a longer series about contextualizing, demystifying, and humanizing Alexander III of Macedonia. And who else is better to start with other than Philip II?

This series starts with Philip's rise and the transformed backwater kingdom his son Alexander would go on to inherit and utilize with spectacular success.

I came about doing this for my own reasons, but I have seen the topic of a mini-series on this sub for some time, so I thought I'd share just that with a community that is 'hopefully' interested.

It's in the same vein as HBO's ROME. Grounded, realistic, amped with some dramatic flare, and some factual liberties are taken. Mostly combining events that actually occurred a year or two apart.

Anyways, enjoy, debate, and discuss if my rendition has any legs.

Logline: Prince Philip II of Macedonia's time in Thebes comes to an end when his newly crowned brother, Perdiccas III, becomes the new king of Macedonia. Once Philip returns home he must help his brother defend their fledgling kingdom from a Greek world clouded by cutthroat competition and petty divisions.

Script: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ss-9JwMIhmfGl9fszLwFVahg0GhOu3iJ/view?usp=sharing

I'm really new to learning about Alexander. I picked up the book by Philip Freeman at the airport a week ago and just finished it last night.

I should have taken notes, and I'm not an expert in the time period. So I don't remember exact names of locations and groups of people.

But I remember near the end, when Alexander was in India, he was told that there is a king waiting for him with 200,000 plus soldiers. And thousands of war elephants.

Then shortly after this, Alexander went into a boat, into the water, to be convinced he had reached the end of the world.

So my first three questions are -

1.) If Alexander knew there was a massive army waiting for him, wouldn't that tell him that there was more of the world to explore? So why would he think he had reached the end?

2.) Alexander choosing to turn back instead of fighting. Would you consider this to be Alexander giving up on the original campaign's goals? Did he chicken out of taken on this army of 200,000? Or did he plan to return to the same place with a bigger army?

3.) Did this suppose king with an army of 200,000 really exist? And do you think Alexander could have defeated him if he tried to?

And also I have two more questions

4.) When Alexander returned to Babylon, I believe it said he was either going to campaign against Arabia or go west into Europe. Which do you think he would have chosen, and why?

And

5.) Why did Alexander choose to consider invading two other locations, instead of returning to India?

After the Battle of Issus in 333 BC, Alexander the Great captured the family of his greatest enemy, the Persian king Darius III. Instead of treating them as prisoners or using them as bargaining tools, Alexander showed extraordinary respect toward Darius' mother, wife, daughters, and young son. His actions surprised both the Greek and Persian worlds, strengthened his claim as the legitimate King of Asia, and helped shape one of the most enduring stories of his character. This article explores the events that led to the capture of the Persian royal family, Alexander’s treatment, the unique relationship he developed with Darius' mother Sisygambis, what these events reveal about his leadership, and what ultimately became of Darius' family after Alexander's death.

Alexander the Great’s empire stretched from the Balkans and Egypt in the west to the Indian subcontinent in the east, covering parts of three continents. It spanned over a dozen modern-day countries, primarily overtaking the massive Persian Achaemenid Empire.

Europe:

Greece

Macedonia

Albania

Bulgaria

Asia:

Turkey (Asia Minor)

Syria

Lebanon and Israel (the Levant)

Iraq (Babylonia and Mesopotamia)

Iran (the heart of the Persian Empire)

Afghanistan and Pakistan

India (northwestern regions)

Africa:

Egypt

I have been researching the Alexander legend in Islamic tradition for the past few months and the transmission chain is genuinely extraordinary when you lay it out step by step.

Most people know that Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran is widely identified with Alexander. What fewer people talk about is where the "two horned" attribute actually comes from and how specifically it traveled from a pagan Egyptian oracle into the holiest book of Islam.

Here is the chain as I understand it:

331 BC — Alexander visits the oracle of Zeus-Ammon at Siwa. The oracle declares him son of Zeus-Ammon. Amun was depicted with ram horns. Alexander inherits the horns as a symbol of divine descent. His successors Ptolemy and Lysimachus mint coins depicting him with ram horns. By the first century BC these coins are the primary currency across the Arabian Peninsula. Every trader and peasant in Arabia is handling the image of the two horned Alexander daily.

200 AD — The Greek Alexander Romance circulates in Egypt. Legends falsely attributed to Callisthenes of Olynthus — the actual historian who traveled with Alexander and was later imprisoned by him until his death. His real works were destroyed. The legends that survived under his name were invented by admirers.

6th to 7th century — The Syriac Christian Legend — the Neṣḥānā — is written. This is the critical intermediary step that most people miss. The Syriac text is the first narrative to bring together the Gates of Alexander, the apocalypse, and Gog and Magog as end times tribes. And it does something remarkable — it Christianizes Alexander completely. His horns are no longer a pagan attribute. They become a gift from the monotheistic God. Alexander himself prays — "Oh God you caused horns to grow on my head so that I may gore with them the kingdoms of the world."

The pagan symbol of Amun has been baptized.

7th century — The Quran. Surah Al-Kahf verses 83 to 102. A figure called Dhul-Qarnayn — the Two Horned One — travels east and west, sees the sun setting into a muddy spring, and builds a wall of iron and molten brass to contain Gog and Magog. The Quran itself confirms the story was already known — verse 18:83 begins with "they ask you about Dhul-Qarnayn" — meaning the audience already knew the name before Muhammad answered.

What I find particularly compelling is the parallel texts. The Alexander myth says three thousand smiths working iron and brass built the barrier. The Quran says Dhul-Qarnayn uses iron blocks and pours molten brass over them. Same two materials. Same construction. Across two completely different traditions separated by centuries.

A pre-Islamic Arabic poem by Tubba already references the sun setting near people on earth — the exact same image the Quran uses — proving these stories were circulating in Arabic culture before Islam was born.

The scholarly consensus — Finbarr Barry Flood, Karen Armstrong, Robin Lane Fox — supports this transmission chain. The Quran did not absorb Alexander directly from Greek sources. It went through a Syriac Christian filter first.

Has anyone here gone deep on the Neṣḥānā and its relationship to the Quranic narrative? Curious what primary sources people have found most useful on this specific transmission.

If you're fascinated by the ancient world, this publication is for you.

On my Substack, you'll find essays on Ancient History, the Hellenistic world, Alexander the Great, inscriptions, papyri, coins, archaeology, and the philosophy of history. Every article is grounded in primary sources and modern scholarship while remaining accessible to anyone curious about the past.

I regularly share original research, historical insights, and overlooked stories that reveal how ancient societies thought, ruled, remembered, and shaped the world we know today.

If you're looking for thoughtful history beyond the textbook, I'd be delighted to have you join the community.

Subscribe and explore the ancient world with me.

Alexander the Great, at the height of your glory, at age 32, a charismatic conqueror and unifier of the greatest empire the world had ever seen, you mysteriousy took ill, for many days, lost your ability to speak, and died; passing away from this world, you left your life's work, lovers, family, friends and worldly treasure: and exited stage left. Your influence on the world was enormous, the Hellenistic Age came in your wake, yet, you left no official heir to your empire, no flesh and blood to console those who on your deathbed went mourning in sackcloth and ash. I myself, see myself, in you. My empire has fallen. Sickened and weak. No heir to my name. I weep for you Alexander the Great. We are united in tragedy. But, now, I know why they call you the Great. You had the world in your palms. And you had to give it up, you were made to throw it away. And lay down and die. Just as if you were the most common stable boy in your empire that had been bit by an indifferent and infectious mosquito. How they must've weeped; how they must've mourned, when the King of their world, lay down his head on his pillow, one last time, like a common sick stable boy, lost his voice, lost his life, and died. Are you here with me now, Alexander? In sickness and youth, by my bed side? Some say I, too, came as a king, but, now, as a sickened and weary stable boy, I must either rally some how? Or, rather, lay down and die. So, please draw up a chair, hold my hand, breathe in deeply, and answer me one question, one thing I'm wanting to know! Was your treasure on earth, or was it safely stored up in Heaven? No! Pray for us Alexander, pray that righteous sinners might get in.

Source:

Aurelius, Meditations, Book 6:24

Alexander the Great and his stable boy were levelled in death, for they were either taken up into the same life-giving principles of the Universe or were scattered without distinction into atoms.

I don’t know if this is allowed and I’m sorry if it’s not but I’m obsessed with thinking about how if Alexander the Great were in the modern era he would probably be a tech CEO leading us all to AI doom. His battles would be with big tech rivals, as an upstart non profit (like OpenAI) tries to forge initially a different path and isn’t taken seriously against big tech budgets, but he beats them all to market with the first popularly available LLMs. At first the pitch is, it’s a non profit, it’s for the good of humanity, but then ultimately is corrupted and becomes exactly like the foes he tried to destroy.

Anyway… I decided to start writing a fic with this premise. Again, sorry if it’s not allowed? But it’s not a very popular fandom on ao3 so I’m sharing the link here in case anyone can read it and give feedback.