Relationships with the army, Greek states and conquered peoples

Introduction: The King, His Men, and the World

In this chapter, we explore how Philip II and Alexander the Great managed the people around them. Being a King of Macedon wasn't just about winning battles; it was about keeping the army loyal, the Greek city-states under control, and conquered peoples from rebelling. For OCR A Level students, understanding these relationships is the key to explaining why the Macedonian Empire grew so fast and why it faced such internal tension.

1. Relationship with the Army: Brotherhood and Betrayal

The Macedonian army was the backbone of the monarchy. Philip II transformed it from a seasonal group of farmers into a professional machine. Alexander inherited this bond but tested it to its absolute limit.

Philip II and the Professional Soldier

Philip was seen as a "soldier’s king." He lived, ate, and fought alongside his men. According to Diodorus Siculus, Philip’s military reorganisation was not just about better spears (the sarissa); it was about creating a sense of patronage. By rewarding his soldiers with land and status, he made their success dependent on his own.

Alexander and the Breaking Point

While Alexander started with the same "brotherhood" vibe, his relationship with the army soured as he moved further East. The sources highlight several key moments of tension:

• Conspiracies: As Alexander adopted Persian customs, his inner circle grew suspicious. The deaths of Philotas and Parmenion, and the murder of Cleitus the Black during a drunken quarrel, showed that the relationship was shifting from mutual respect to fear.
• The Hyphasis Mutiny: At the Hyphasis River in India, the soldiers finally said "no." They were exhausted and homesick. Arrian records how Alexander tried to persuade them, but for the first time, his charisma wasn't enough. He was forced to turn back.
• The Opis Mutiny: In 324 BC, at Opis, the army revolted again. This time, they were angry that Alexander was incorporating Persian "Successors" into the army and giving them Macedonian titles. Alexander crushed this by famously telling his troops they could go home, while he replaced them with Persians—forcing the Macedonians to beg for forgiveness.

Quick Review: Philip’s relationship was built on professionalism and reform; Alexander’s was built on charismatic leadership that eventually clashed with his soldiers' Macedonian traditions.

2. Relationship with the Greek States: Diplomacy and Dominance

The Greeks often looked down on Macedonians as "barbarians," so Philip and Alexander had to use a mix of "the carrot and the stick" (rewards and punishments) to keep them in line.

Philip and the League of Corinth

After his victory at Chaeronea (338 BC), Philip didn't just occupy Greece; he created the League of Corinth.
- Diplomacy: Philip presented himself as the Hegemon (leader) of a united Greek crusade against Persia.
- The Peace of Philocrates: Earlier in his reign, Philip used complex diplomacy and treaties to divide the Greek states, specifically Athens. Demosthenes, the Athenian orator, famously warned the Greeks that Philip’s "friendship" was a trap.

Alexander and the Greek Response

Alexander had to prove he was just as strong as his father. When Thebes revolted shortly after he became king, he destroyed the city as a warning to others.
- The Exiles' Decree (324 BC): Late in his reign, Alexander ordered all Greek cities to take back their political exiles. This was a massive interference in Greek internal affairs and caused huge resentment, showing that the relationship had moved from "alliance" to "absolute command."

Did you know? Alexander sent 300 suits of Persian armour back to Athens after the Battle of the Granicus with an inscription that specifically excluded the Spartans (who refused to join him). This was a clever bit of political propaganda!

3. Relationship with Conquered Peoples: The Policy of Fusion

This is where Alexander differed most from Philip. While Philip focused on expanding borders, Alexander tried to integrate the people he conquered.

Adopting Persian Customs

To rule the Persian Empire effectively, Alexander believed he needed to look like a Persian King.
- Proskynesis: He tried to introduce this Persian custom of bowing or prostrating before the king. To the Persians, this was respect; to the Greeks/Macedonians, this was something you only did for gods. This led to the conspiracy of Callisthenes.
- Marriages: Alexander married Roxane (a Bactrian princess) and later organised the Susa Marriages, where he forced his high-ranking officers to marry Persian noblewomen. Arrian and Plutarch note that this was intended to create a "union of the peoples."

Foundation Cities

Alexander founded dozens of cities (many named Alexandria). These weren't just military outposts; they were intended to spread Greek culture and act as hubs for controlling the local conquered populations.

The Sources Speak: Material Evidence

• The Porus Medallion: This commemorative coin shows Alexander’s dominance over the Indian King Porus, but also his willingness to leave local rulers in power as long as they were loyal.
• The Alexander Sarcophagus: This shows Macedonians and Persians hunting together, symbolising the "fusion" Alexander hoped to achieve.
• Silver Tetradrachms: Coins showing Alexander with the horns of Zeus Ammon show how he used Egyptian religion to make himself more acceptable to his new subjects as a "divine" ruler.

Key Takeaways for the Exam

1. The Army: Transitioned from loyalty based on shared Macedonian identity to tension over Alexander’s "orientalism" and the fatigue of long campaigns (Hyphasis/Opis).
2. Greek States: Managed through the League of Corinth. Philip used diplomacy (Peace of Philocrates); Alexander used more direct force and decrees (Thebes/Exiles' Decree).
3. Conquered Peoples: Alexander used a policy of fusion (marriages, dress, Persian troops) to stabilise his rule, though this alienated his own Macedonian elites.

Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't assume the army was always happy because they were winning. The mutinies are essential evidence that Alexander's relationship with his men was often near breaking point!