Macedonian conqueror, in both Jewish and Christian sources, was a composite and of complicated design. It was constantly created and recreated, using varied techniques and inspirations, which resulted in a number of disparate, fragmentary projections. The dominant features of these projections were selected according to the immediate need and agenda of the text in which the figure of Alexander appeared. There is a certain continuity between the development of Alexander stories and legends in the Jewish milieu and those of the Greek and Roman pagan traditions, but there are significant innovations as well. As for the Christian authors, as much as they were familiar with Classical writings on Alexander, they would also exploit the Jewish corpus of Alexander legends, some of which have no direct parallel in Greco-Roman pagan writings.

This chapter discusses the typology and the social and gender aspects of Babylonian female names recorded in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods (626–330 BCE). As to typology, a distinction is made between names that constitute a sentence and those that constitute a noun. In both categories, further subdivisions are possible. As to the social use of female names, the chapter discusses how names indicate the social status and origins of their bearers. Although most female names were given to women of any social status, some names were typical of enslaved women. Finally, the chapter discusses the distinctions between male and female names.

The transmission of the condicio coloniaria appears determined by the characterisation of it as a lesser status and the senatusconsultum Claudianum used as correction. But this was not restricted to coloni. Other groups involved in an industry important for the emperor (weapon smiths, silk weavers, purple snail divers, miners, minters) were also tied and subjected, as the corporati of towns, important for the municipal services (fire men, etc.). The term condicionales is used. However, from the enumeration it follows that the lesser status, which also impeded the fulfillment of official functions, was restricted to these groups and was not a general phenomenon.

The Introduction locates the current volume initially in the context of the work of the Alexander equipe since 1997, and then more broadly in the context of visions of Alexander proffered since the work of Droysen in 1833, with particular attention to those of Berve (1926), Wilcken 1931, Tarn (1948), Schachermeyr (1949), Badian (1958–), Lane Fox 1973 and Bosworth (1980–). A response is given to the objections voiced against the approach of the activities of the equipe formulated by James Davidson in 2001 under the slogan ‘Alexanderland’. The breakdown of the book’s parts and chapters is laid out and justified, with the contents of each contribution briefly summarized. Particular attention is given to the selection of the historical sources accorded focused discussions in Part III.

Alexander spent at most eight months in Egypt (mid/late October of 332 to late June of 331), but his brief time there has sparked more academic debate than any other similar period in his eleven-year campaign. In order to contextualize such a diversity of scholarly opinion, this chapter will investigate the Greco-Roman literary sources, the contemporary Egyptian language documents, and the archaeological evidence through four key events–Alexander’s arrival in Memphis, his founding of Alexandria, his visit to Siwah, and his return to Memphis and departure.

This chapter presents basic information on the most commonly attested male names in Babylonian cuneiform sources from the first millennium BCE. Starting with the spelling of personal names with orthographic markers (‘Personenkeil’), this chapter gives an overview of typical elements of male Babylonian names (theophoric elements, kinship terms, and other frequent nouns, verbs, and adjectives), different grammatical structures (sentence names, compound names consisting of genitive constructions, single word names), possible additions (filiations, status terms, occupational titles), principles of shortening names to reduced forms, and the use of nicknames and double names. The chapter offers substantial examples of each name type or feature discussed and offers indications of how common or rare those types and features are.

This chapter discusses the various Old Iranian names attested in Late Babylonian sources. These names occur from the Neo-Assyrian period onwards, but as can be expected, most of them occur in texts dated to the Achaemenid period (c. 539–331 BCE). After a short introduction, the chapter briefly presents the types of textual sources where the names are attested, a typology of Old Iranian names (including four hybrid names and demonstrating that especially hypocoristic names occur), elements in names (with a list of the most frequent ones), and spelling and normalisation conventions, including a discussion of some errors. Here the reader will discover that the Babylonian scribes were extremely accurate in their rendering of Old Iranian names, despite the large difference between Babylonian and Old Iranian. The chapter ends with a discussion of some socio-onomastic aspects of Old Iranian names in Late Babylonian sources. Transposition tables are offered as annex to the chapter.

The images of Alexander deriving from his own lifetime fall into two main categories: on the one hand, representations without attributes, which are more or less what we would now term ‘portraits’; and on the other hand, representations with attributes, which have an allegorical function, their purpose being to give out a message about Alexander, to tell a story about him, rather than merely to convey his likeness. Images of Alexander in sculpture tended towards ‘realism’, while images of him in painting and glyptics tended towards allegorization. The attributes given to Alexander in art during his own lifetime are restricted in their epistemological content, being predominantly of a military sort, such as a spear or armour. But a much richer repertoire of attributes emerges for him in the posthumous representations of the king generated by and for his successors in the Hellenistic age. Above all, these allowed for his direct association with the divine: the aegis associated him with Zeus and Athena; ram’s horns with Zeus-Ammon; goat’s horns with Pan; bull’s horns with Dionysus; the lion-scalp with Heracles; the elephant-scalp with Dionysus; and the radiate crown with Apollo-Helios.

This chapter discusses Arrian’s characterization of Alexander the Great. Beginning from a brief history of scholarship on Arrian and his unusually large role in shaping modern understandings of Alexander, it approaches Arrian as an active creator of historical knowledge. Using examples from the Anabasis, it demonstrates that Arrian observed a shift in Alexander’s behaviour arising from the increasingly complex political and personal circumstances of his life. He described this change overtly at times, but more often by setting Alexander into a literary framework based on Herodotus’ portraits of despotic Persian kings and tweaked to reflect philosophical and moral concerns contemporary in Arrian’s own lifetime. The Anabasis forms the core of the discussion but the Discourses of Epictetus and the Indica provide complementary readings and show consistency in Arrian’s approach to his favourite subject.

We consider changes (Persianizing one) that Alexander made to his court from mid-330 BCE onwards, as well as opposition to it (and him) in the form of conspiracies and other clashes. Discussion is framed by a brief look at changes introduced by previous kings, as well as at new evidence from archaeology in north Greece that alters our understanding of early Macedon. It also takes into account the Greco-Roman literary topoi that overlay our sources, particularly with regard to major conspiracies, conflict, and the ‘mutiny’ at Opis – all in an effort to excavate the original underlying Macedonian perspective, insofar as we can.

Residual languages, which are represented in the onomasticon of first-millennium BCE Babylonia, are Kassite and Urartian. In addition, it is likely that also other dialects from the central Zagros and the Armenian plateau left traces in the pertinent Neo- and Late Babylonian corpus, but concrete examples cannot be detected. The Kassite onomastic material consists mainly of surnames which were inherited from the late-Kassite and early post-Kassite periods in Babylonia, as well as of several prestigious royal names. Only two Urartian anthroponyms are recorded in first-millennium BCE Babylonia. There is a small number of atypical anthroponyms, mostly consisting of reduplicated syllables (frequently two or three) with or without suffixes. The number of unaffiliated names is restricted. Several gentilics are used as given names. The total percentage of all these unrelated categories in the abundant Neo- and Late Babylonian onomastic corpus is very low, almost negligible.

This chapter discusses Aramaic personal names, as attested in Babylonian cuneiform sources from the Neo- and Late Babylonian periods. Linguistically these names are of West Semitic nature, whereas they are written in cuneiform script used to express Late Babylonian Akkadian. Cuneiform text groups that furnish the bulk of the data are those from Yahudu, Bit-Abi-râm, and surroundings (sixth and fifth centuries BCE) and the Murašû corpus from Nippur (second half of the fifth century BCE). These corpora differ from most contemporary cuneiform archives. Rather than portraying Babylonian urban elites, they are set in rural areas that had exprienced migratory settlement (Aramean tribes, deportees). Hence, these texts document a population known for its ethnic and linguistic diversity. This diversity is reflected in the onomasticon, of which Aramaic names constitute the largest non-Babylonian component. The Aramaic names are recognisable on the basis of linguistic criteria. Moreover, Aramean deities are often invoked in verbal and nominal sentence names. The chapter offers many examples of the various characteristics of Aramean names that are discussed and it also presents tools for identifying Aramaic names in Babylonian texts.

The reason for Alexander’s life and work simply put was conquest and the quest for everlasting glory. He was a young man dead before his thirty-third birthday, the conqueror of the old adversary Persia, having led the most proficient army the world had to this time ever seen to victory after victory. His desire for fame and triumph at the time of his death had not been fulfilled. He had plans for further conquests in Arabia and across the western Mediterranean. Only his death ended his pursuit of these driving forces in his life.