14. Alexander was born in Pella, Macedonia.

13. He was a Greek king of Macedon, a state in northern ancient Greece.

12. Alexander was the son of King Philip II of Macedon and Olympias, daughter of King Neoptolemus I of Epirus.

11. He was undefeated in battle and is considered one of history’s most successful commanders.
10. The philosopher Aristotle tutored Alexander until age 16.

9. In 336 B.C. his father Philip was assassinated, and Alexander the Great became ruler of Macedonia.

8. In 334 BC, he invaded Persian-ruled Asia Minor and began a series of campaigns that lasted ten years.

Do you like this article? You can write articles like this and make money from it. It is free to join and you can start making money online as soon as you sign-up. Click on the link to Sign-up with Triond.com and starting making some good money on the internet.

7. When King Philip II returned to Pella, he fell in love with and married Cleopatra Eurydice, the niece of his general Attalus.

6. Alexander’s children were Herakles, son of Alexander’s mistress Barsine, and Alexander IV, son of Roxane.

5. On the day that Alexander was born, Philip was preparing himself for his siege on the city of Potidea on the peninsula of Chalkidiki.

4. One legend about Alexander the Great is that when he was in Gordium, in Turkey, in 333 B.C., he undid the Gordian Knot which had been tied by the legendary King Midas’ father.

3. Alexander began his reign by eliminating potential rivals to the throne. He had his cousin, the former Amyntas IV, executed.

2. By the age of thirty, Alexander the Great was the creator of one of the largest empires in ancient history.

1. On either 10 or 11 June 323 BC, Alexander died in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II, in Babylon, at age 32.

Did you like this article? You can write articles like this and make money from it. It is free to join and you can start making money online as soon as you sign-up. Click on the link to Sign-up with Triond.com and starting making some good money on the internet.

Related Content:

Interesting Facts About Martin Luther King Jr

Interesting Facts About Jesus Christ

Interesting Facts About Franklin D. Roosevelt

Interesting Facts About Muhammad Ali

Top 15 Facts About Thomas Jefferson

Top 15 Facts About George Washington

22. Lifetime of the water we drink as much as approximately 75 000 liters

23. Any person, including identical twins, fingerprints and tongue have the same.

24. Red dot on the 7-Up logo comes from the red-eyed inventor. He was an albino.

25. Men lose 40 hairs per day. women 70 strands.

26. The ’save’ in Microsoft Office programs shows a floppy disk with the shutter the image upside down

27. Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin both married their first cousins ​​(Elsa Lowenthal and Emma Wedgewood).

28. Camels have three eyelids.

29. A strand of hair on the head we have grown from 2 to 6 years before it was replaced with new hair

30. Someone will still be unconscious for eight seconds after beheading

31. Muscles that work the fastest muscle in your body we are dikelopak eyes that make us blink. we can not blink in a second 5kali

32. Chocolate can kill dogs, because it directly affects the heart and nervous system

33. Without the mixed saliva in the mouth, we will not feel the taste of food

34. 4kali Fingernails grow faster than toenails

35. 13% of people in the world is left-handed

36. Most lipstick contains fish scales

37. Newborns severe head 1/4 of its body weight

38. We actually see the brain. just a camera eye that sends data to the brain. 1/4 part of the brain are used to regulate the work of the eye

39. Be killed by a scorpion douse with vinegar, they will be angry and sting itself

40. 1830s ketchup was sold as medicine.

      And I leave in the hands of many people who had come to the rescue, and tookthe door of the villa at the foot of a trot, and before the night fell in Trios.19 Di me I did not know more about what God made ​​him or cured of knowledge.

Another day, be there I do not have insurance, I went to a place called Marques,where I encountered a my sins to a priest, it came to begging, asked if I knew how to help mass. I said yes, as was true, although battered, a thousand good things showed me the sinner from the blind, and one of them was this. Finally, I received by his clergy.
      I escaped the thunder and lightning gave in because it was the blind with it an Alexander the Great, 2 with being the same avarice, as I told you. I say no more but all the tracery of the world was locked in this: I do not know if their crop was or what had annexed the habit of clergy.
      He had an old arcs closed with his key, which tied with a lace brought politic. In the coming boding of the church, where his hand was then released,and come again to close the ark. And throughout the house there was nothing to eat,as often in others: a bacon hanging from the chimney, some cheese placed on a table or in the cupboard, a basket with some pieces of bread left over from the table. It seems to me that although it does not take advantage, with the view of that comfort me.
      Only onions had a gallows, and after the key, in a chamber at the top of the house. Of these ration I had one for every four days, and when asked the key to go for it, if any was present, threw falsetto hand, and with great continence, untied and gave it to me saying:
      -Take it, and then turn to him, but do not treat.
      As below it were all canned Valencia, failing in that chamber, as I said, damn the other thing that

The Arab Spring brings to the attention of the world several Middle-Eastern countries particularly Egypt, Tunisia and Libya among others. The Arab Spring phenomenon ousted leaders like Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Col. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya. Syria and other Arab countries are also affected by the escalation of protests caused by the Arab Spring. One of the countries highly affected by the Arab Spring is Egypt. Although Egypt is just a third world Arab country that it is today, it is a country with a glorious past that has contributed to the development of human civilization.

Egypt is strategically located in the northernmost part of Africa and it is also at the crossroads of Asia. It is bounded to the north by the Mediterranean Sea which connects Egypt by sea to the Near East and to Southern Europe. The Nile River is one of the factors that made Egypt as one of the cradles of early civilization. The mighty Nile is the longest river in the world. It runs 6,670 kilometers in Africa from its many tributaries in the south and drains its water into the deltas of Egypt in the North and into the Mediterranean Sea. The seasonal flooding of the Nile brought silt along the river banks which made the soil fertile for planting of crops. The water in the river also provided the growth and sustenance to wild plants and animals. As a result activities such as hunting, farming, navigation and others flourished. And trade then developed. The growth of papyrus, a reed in the Nile which was used as paper facilitated the development of early writings. The early civilization of Egypt was responsible for the creation of architectural wonders such as the pyramids which were tombs of the pharaohs. The pyramids, the sphinx and other structures were made about 5,000 years ago by ancient people using primitive tools and technologies. But their creations have stood the test of time so that the people of today, not only in Egypt but all over the world, can still see the architectural masterpieces that were created from the millenniums that have gone by.

Elizabeth Taylor portrayed Cleopatra in a movie

The Lighthouse of Pharos

The young Macedonian king Alexander the Great and his Greek/Macedonian army conquered the Persian Empire in 332 BC. And Egypt, a vassal of Persia, fell into the hands of the Macedonians. In Egypt Alexander founded a city and named it after him – Alexandria. In his military campaigns, Alexander conquered vast territories and created the largest empire that the ancient world had ever known. However, he died at a young age of 33 at Babylon without a clearly designated successor. As a result his generals fought among themselves for the control of the areas of the vast empire Alexander had left. Ptolemy l Soter, one of Alexander’s generals secured Egypt and made himself later as king. Believing that possessions of the remains of the much admired warrior and beloved king could endow him lasting power, Ptolemy and his army hijacked the golden casket containing the remains of Alexander while the funeral cortege was on its way to Asia Minor and brought it to Alexandria. Ptolemy 1 established the Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt which lasted until 30BC.Thedynaty spread the Greek language and culture to the ancient world. The Ptolemies built the Alexandrian Library, which was the largest in the ancient world. They also built the Alexandrian School which became the foremost center of learning of the world during the Hellenistic era. Among the famous teacher of the school were the mathematicians Apollonius, Hero and Euclid, the physician Erasistratus and the astronomer Hipparcus. The Ptolomies also constructed the Lighthouse of Pharos which along with the Pyramids was one of the wonders of the ancient world. However, unlike the pyramid, the lighthouse no longer exists today. It was said to be destroyed by an earthquake around 1303 AD. The last of the Ptolemies was Cleopatra Vll (c69-30 BC). She was the lover of Roman emperor, Julius Caesar, and later the wife of Mark Antony, a contender to the Roman emperorship. Cleopatra was immortalized in literary works and in movies. Renowned authors such as Shakespeare and George Bernard Shaw wrote about her. Indeed, a woman who could captivate some of the most powerful men in antiquity could have been very charming and beautiful during her life.

After the death and resurrection of Christ, Mark the evangelist and the apostle, set foot in Egypt and established his church there. Christianity then spread to that country and it became its majority religion in 4th century AD. The Arab conquest in 7th century AD has forever changed the face of the Egyptian society. Today, Egypt is mainly an Arab country and Christians constitute only about 10% of its population.

Related articles:

The Rivers That Give the World Its Early Civilizations

The Coptic Christians of Egypt

Image via Wikipedia

In 325 BC Alexander invaded India after defeating the Persians. His was a triumphant march across Asia and none could stand against the Greek cavalry and soldiers led by Alexander. No wonder he is given the title ‘The Great’.

On entering India the local Rajahs promptly accepted him as their mentor and leader and agreed to pay him him tribute. But Raja Porus refused and he met Alexander on the banks of the Jhelum river in a bloody battle , often referred to by Greek historians as the ‘Battle of Hydespes’.  Alexander marshaled his cavalry under his general Seleucus and Porus  went into battle with 200 elephants.

Most Greek historians of that period mention this battle but do not annotate any result. There is no Indian record of this battle, pointing to the fact that Indians considered it a small show. But we can interpret that initially Alexander followed his favorite tactic of attack and crossed the Jhelum river. The battle went in his favor at the start as the Chariots of Porus got stuck in the loose sand of the river bank. Sensing victory Seleucus pressed forward when from the mist emerged the elephant corps of Porus.

This force of elephants was something the Greeks had never seen and they were in awe of it as the elephants trumpeting loudly led a assault on the Greeks. Perhaps this charge had an element of shock for the Greek cavalry and soldiers who were pushed back. At the end of the day Alexander decided to disengage as his soldiers overawed by the elephants refused to go forward. Many Indian historians now point out that Alexander was defeated by Porus  and that was the reason he decided to turn back. History records that he gifted lands to Porus and recognized him a regional king. Not something you would do to a loser in battle.

In 336 B.C., Philip was assassinated, and Alexander, then 20 years old, assumed the throne. After consolidating his rule over the Greek states, he undertook, in 334, a military campaign against the Persian Empire to the east. Alexander’s army, about 35,000 strong (although some sources say 65,000), crossed the Hellespont (the Dardanelles) from Greece into what is now Turkey and defeated a Persian force under Darius III at the Granges River. He proceeded along the east shore of the MEDITERRANEAN SEA, then inland into Asia Minor, conquering all the territory as far as present-day Ankara, Turkey.

Alexander and his army continued southward into present- day Lebanon where he captured the Phoenician city of Tyre. Then, in 332, he headed west along the northern coast of the Sinai Peninsula into Egypt, which he conquered with little resistance. That same year, he established Alexandria on Egypt’s northern Mediterranean shore.

In 331, Alexander’s army crossed into Syria and soon reached the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. At the battle of Guacamole in what is now northern Iraq, he decisively defeated the Persians. Alexander pushed northeastward across present-day Iran in pursuit of the Persian army. South of the Caspian Sea, he crossed the Elbrus Mountains by way of a pass known as the Caspian Gates, or the Sitar Pass. Following the south coast of the Caspian Sea, he led his army across northern Iran to the Gorgon River. From there he headed south and east, entering what is now Afghanistan. En route, he established Alexandria in Ari is (modern He rat, Afghanistan) and Alexandria Earaches (near modern Kandahar, Afghanistan).

Turning northeast in 329, Alexander and his victorious army entered the Kabul Valley. At the foot of the Hindu Kush range, which he believed to be part of the Caucasus Mountains, he founded the city of Alexandria ad Caucasum. Still in pursuit of the Persians, he crossed the Hindu Kush, probably by way of 11,650-foot-high Khawak Pass, and entered what is now Uzbekistan.

In the southern Russian steppes, Alexander crossed north and east to the Amu Darya, then known as the Oxus River, and conquered the ancient cities of Balkh and Samarkand. He continued northeastward as far as the Syr Darya River (known in ancient times as the Jaxartes), where he established Alexandria Eschate, the site of what became Leninabad. This settlement was the farthest eastern reach of Alexander’s travels.

From Alexandria Eschate, Alexander and his forces moved south across Afghanistan and, in 327, recrossed the Hindu Kush into India, reaching the INDUS RIVER. He led his army across the Indus to the Jhelum River (the ancient Hydaspes) and reached the Beas River (the ancient Hyphasis). Although his army defeated the Indian forces on the Jhelum, his men refused to proceed, fearing the unknown lands to the east. Alexander had planned to conquer the rest of India, as far as the GANGES RIVER, but with his troops on the verge of mutiny, he decided to return west. After having a fleet of 200 ships built on the Jhelum, Alexander led his army down the river in autumn 325. They reached the Indus and descended to its mouth in the Arabian Sea near present-day Karachi, Pakistan. Alexander sent part of his army aboard 150 ships, under the command of NEARCHUS, on an expedition westward along the coast of the Arabian Sea as far as the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers at the head of the Persian Gulf. He led the rest of his army through the desert region of southern Baluchistan back to the Mesopotamian cities of Susa and Babylon. The overland journey was fraught with hardship; it is estimated that Alexander lost thousands of his men to thirst. Moreover, thousands of the camp followers were drowned in desert flash floods.

By 324, Alexander had returned to Persia and undertook explorations of the Tigris River into what is now Iraq. He planned to undertake a seaward exploration around the Arabian Peninsula and may have intended a circumnavigation of Africa. Before he could embark, however, he contracted a fever, probably resulting from malaria, following a 10-day drinking bout, and died in June 323 B.C. Soon afterward, his empire fell into disarray.

Alexander the Great, as he was known after his unprecedented conquest of the Middle East and central  Asia, extended European geographic knowledge as far as India. His army traversed 20,000 miles of territory in Europe, Africa, and Asia, including many regions unknown to the Greeks and other Mediterranean civilizations. Traveling with his army were scientists, who sent back to Greece samples of newly discovered plants and animals. In addition, his forces were accompanied by bematists, early surveyors who measured his route. Subsequent accounts of Alexander’s conquests provided the Hellenistic world with a knowledge of Asia and led to increased contact with India and China. His route across modern Iran, south of the Caspian Sea, became a vital link in the Silk Road, an important trade route in ancient times between China and the eastern Mediterranean.

Plutarch was lucky enough to live during a very interesting not to mention dramatic period in history when the Roman empire was still actually expanding. The Ancient Greeks and Macedonians had been involved in wars between each other and against the Persians for many decades, and there were myths about their military achievements.2 The ancient Greeks and the Macedonians were used to fighting each other instead of fighting alongside each other until Alexander the Great started his glorious campaigns of military conquest that took his armies as far as India. Plutarch was actually writing around 350 years after the conquests of Alexander the Great, and his subsequent death, and thus could choose which of Alexander the Great’s successors to write about. After all these were some of the people that had helped to shape his own world. Plutarch was a Greek who lived in an era when the empire of Alexander the Great paled into insignificance in comparison to the Roman empire, which had gone to conquer all the Ancient Greek cities and Macedonia. Besides the Roman empire already consisted of the majority of territory that had once been Alexander the Great’s empire in Asia Minor and the Middle East.3

The Life of Demetrius was part of Plutarch’s ambitious plan to write a series of biographies about the most important Greeks, Macedonians, and Romans up to his own times. In total Plutarch wrote over 40 biographies in the series that included The Life of Demetrius. Taken separately or in combination with the whole series The Life of Demetrius is a useful source of information concerning some of the leading figures in ancient Greek, Macedonian and Roman history. Aside from Demetrius I Poliorcetes, Plutarch’s biographies included Alexander the Great and one of Demetrius I Poliorcetes’s main rivals Ptolemy in the conflicts to grab parts of Alexander the Great’s disintegrating empire. Except for when Alexander the Great was alive was the only time when the ancient Greeks and the Macedonians had been ruled together within his empire whereas as before and afterwards they were divided and frequently fighting each other.4

Plutarch apparently held Demetrius I Poliorcetes in high regard to write a biography based upon his life as well as his achievements. Demetrius I Poliorcetes after all did manage to become the King of Macedonia and engage in military campaigns that amply demonstrated his skills as a military commander.5 The Life of Demetrius presents a portrayal of Demetrius I Poliorcetes being one of Alexander the Great’s most capable successors. In The Life of Demetrius Plutarch arguably contends that Demetrius I Poliorcetes was a successful King of Macedonia and effective military commander yet those that followed in his footsteps were not as capable and would ultimately prove incapable of resisting conquest by the advancing Roman legions. Ironically at the time that Plutarch wrote The Life of Demetrius all the lands that Demetrius I Poliorcetes had ruled were part of the Roman empire.6 In contrast the descendants of Ptolemy still had control of Egypt during Plutarch’s own lifetime. The dynasty of Ptolemy was in charge of Egypt until Augustus defeated Mark Anthony and the Egyptian queen Cleopatra around eighty years before Plutarch was actually born. Plutarch wrote The Life of Demetrius due to Demetrius meeting his own concepts of the qualities as well as the achievements that made Demetrius amongst others a great military leader.7

It arguably becomes clear from studying The Life of Demetrius that Plutarch held a keen interest in military affairs and also had a sound appreciation of the political and strategic factors that could have an impact upon the success or the failure of military campaigns. The written works of Plutarch including The Life of Demetrius reflected his interest in military tactics, the strategies of opposing military leaders, as well as the weapons deployed by the opposing armies in classical battles and wars. Plutarch was also concerned with the techniques of the most famous military leaders and how successful they were in winning battles, sieges, and ultimately wars taken as a whole. In The Life of Demetrius Plutarch aimed to be as accurate as possible in describing the various military campaigns of Demetrius I Poliorcetes. Plutarch would have been assisted in achieving accuracy in his descriptions of the military tactics, strategies, and also the actual weapons employed by Demetrius I Poliorcetes as well as other Ancient Greek and Macedonian military leaders all used very similar ideas and virtually the same equipment. In the time between Demetrius’ lifetime and Plutarch writing The Life of Demetrius the military tactics, strategies, and weapons of military leaders and their armies had changed very little, or indeed not at all.8

Plutarch’s own background and education made him highly qualified to write about military and political leaders as he came from a wealthy Greek family. Plutarch was an well-educated Athenian well versed in politics, philosophy, literature, and history. Not only was Plutarch well educated, he also had a successful career as an academic and a writer. Indeed Plutarch gained such a good reputation for his knowledge of history, literature, philosophy and politics that he visited Rome on several occasions to present well-received lectures about these subjects as well as military leaders and their successes or failures during wars. Whilst presenting several lectures in Rome was presumably highly lucrative for Plutarch he also wrote books on the same topics. Books unlike lectures could be enjoyed at any time at any place, whilst his knowledge about the Ancient Greeks, the Macedonians and the Romans could be passed on to many subsequent generations.9 Unlike Plutarch and contemporaries the subsequent generations that read The Life of Demetrius and his other books did not usually have a strong foreknowledge of the military and political leaders being evaluated, or indeed their strengths as well as their weaknesses. The attentions to detail that Plutarch usually paid in The Life of Demetrius and his other books is certainly useful to modern day historians and students of military history. During his own lifetime The Life of Demetrius and his other books did more to enhance Plutarch’s reputation than to tarnish it.

In many respects Plutarch’s depictions of Demetrius in The Life of Demetrius show the latter to be an above average Macedonian military leader for the era in which he had lived in, with a specialist skill for siege warfare. Plutarch was well aware of Demetrius’ skill and elan when it came down to the conducting of siege warfare, polishing attack techniques that continued to be employed hundreds of years after his death.10 Even if Demetrius had not carried out extensive research about Demetrius I Poliorcetes’ military career, his reputation for conducting siege warfare was obvious, due to the nickname given to him by the Ancient Greeks, Poliorcetes, which literally means the besieger. In many respects Demetrius went on to find through first hand experience just how invaluable his skills at conducting siege warfare were in terms of the successful conclusions of contemporary military campaigns. Arguably Plutarch found that Demetrius I Poliorcetes’ reputation as a master of conducting siege warfare made him more interesting to write a book about and hopefully more tempting for the readers of military histories to go out and buy a copy of The Life of Demetrius.11

Plutarch was plainly not lacking in confidence in his own abilities as an academic all rounder, philosopher, military historian and writer. His self-confidence was definitely made apparent by his decisions to write a collection of studies concerning some of the most famous Ancient Greek, Macedonian and Roman military leaders.12 Many of the intended readers for The Life of Demetrius and his other books in the series would probably have had a sound knowledge of all the military leaders in Plutarch’s books.13 It remains highly doubtful that if Plutarch had gained a reputation and his other books that he would have sold many copies.14

The first part of the evaluation of The Life of Demetrius will focus upon section 22 of that book. The area of Demetrius I Poliorcetes military career covered by section 22 of The Life of Demetrius tells of the war with the Rhodeans. As far as Demetrius I Poliorcetes was concerned the Rhodeans were a threat to his position, not to mention his ambitions to gain further territories in Ancient Greece, Macedonia, and also Asia Minor. In section 22 of The Life of Demetrius Plutarch depicts his determination to defeat and subsequently conquer the Rhodeans. Demetrius is described as making meticulous preparations to ensure that his forthcoming attack against the Rhodeans would actually end successfully for him. Demetrius I Poliorcetes made such meticulous preparations before attacking the Rhodeans as he expected them to put up a stem resistance to his army’s attacks against them. Plutarch implies that Demetrius I Poliorcetes was well aware of the difficulties he faced in defeating the Rhodeans due to his previous experience of warfare and sieges in particular. Demetrius I Poliorcetes knew that the Rhodeans were actually in some very strong defensive positions and were well led before he decided to attack them in any case. The Rhodeans were well placed and well drilled behind their defences and they had fair warning that Demetrius and his army were intending to attack them. The battle would come down to whether or not Demetrius I Poliorcetes meticulous preparations and the techniques of this army were capable of overwhelming the strong defences of the Rhodeans.15

As Rhodes was an island Demetrius I Poliorcetes had to make extra levels of preparation in order to successfully conquer it. Not only did Demetrius I Poliorcetes have to use hundreds of the ships he actually owned to carry the thousands of men, the vast quantity of weapons and vital supplies to the island. Such was the size of the task ahead of him, he also had to rely on many hundreds more ships helping out his invasion attempt Demetrius I Poliorcetes was certain that the wealth of Rhodes was too tempting to avoid.16 Rhodes had ample wealth and its highly advantageous position for trade would allow him to recuperate the high costs of launching the invasion attempt in the first place. Plutarch comments that Demetrius I Poliorcetes decision to assemble his own man made harbour was sound as well as being highly innovative. Without the erection of that man made harbour the ultimately unsuccessful siege of the islands of Rhodes would have ended much sooner. The idea of constructing a man made harbour was so innovative that not even the Persians or Alexander the Great had thought about enacting such a strategy. The Rhodeans were still able to survive, as Plutarch could not bring in enough men and supplies to overcome the island’s defences without capturing its main harbour.17

Aside from the man made harbour the other main innovation that Demetrius I Poliorcetes and this army introduced during the attack on the island of Rhodes was a very tall siege tower. Demetrius I Poliorcetes decided to introduce the very tall siege tower dubbed the Helepolis as means to break down the city walls of Rhodes as conventionally sized siege towers had failed to do so. The Helepolis was a massive siege tower that needed to be put into position and then manned by other 3,000 men to attack the Rhodesian defenders with impunity. Although the Helepolis made minor breeches in the city walls of Rhodes, the Rhodesian defenders were able to remove parts of the vast machines armour plating and prompting Demetrius I Poliorcetes to remove it towards safety. After a year of unsuccessful siege, combined with the man made harbour and the Helepolis not being able to break the defences of the Rhodeans Demetrius I Poliorcetes decided to end the siege. Though Demetrius I Poliorcetes had shown his skills as a military leader he had been unable to take the wealthy prize of Rhodes after all. Plutarch’s account of the siege of Rhodes seems to tally pretty closely in detail to other descriptions given by other writers and remaining witness accounts. Plutarch presented a fairly well balanced depiction of the siege in The Life of Demetrius with the military leadership of Demetrius I Poliorcetes and the bravery of the Rhodeans defenders both receiving attention in the course of Plutarch’s description of events during the siege.18

After the siege of Rhodes, Plutarch turned his attention to Demetrius I Poliorcetes military campaign against Cassander, which after all was precisely what Demetrius I Poliorcetes had done. Demetrius I Poliorcetes, and Cassander were similar in one respect, they were both sons of two of Alexander the Great’s most respected military leaders.19 Demetrius I Poliorcetes had outshone his own father through having greater military skills, Cassander had instead been disinherited by his own father Antipator, before regaining his position after his father’s death. Demetrius I Poliorcetes and his enemy Cassander were bitter rivals, which becomes clear just by reading section 23 of The Life of Demetrius. The conflict was intense due to Demetrius I Poliorcetes and Cassander both wanting to increase their share of territory from what was left of Alexander the Great’s empire.20

Cassander got the better of Demetrius I Poliorcetes on the majority of occasions they fought each other or more accurately prevented Demetrius I Poliorcetes from making any significant territorial gains. D in theory was fighting the military campaigns in his father’s name, Antigonus I Monophthlmus. Despite Demetrius I Poliorcetes being a far more capable military leader and tactician Antigonus I Monophthlmus remained nominally in charge of their armies as well as their territories. To a large extent Demetrius I Poliorcetes and Cassander remained locked in a hard fought war that was a highly expensive stalemate, and that did not benefit either of them in the long run. Cassander was able to break the stalemate in spectacular fashion during 301 BC at the battle of Ipsus. Plutarch in The Life of Demetrius does not attempt to hide the damaging consequences that the battle of Ipsus had for Demetrius I Poliorcetes. For Demetrius I Poliorcetes the defeat at Ipsus not only resulted in the death of his father Antigonus I Monophthlmus it was a severe military reverse that set the limits of the territories he was able to rule over. For Demetrius I Poliorcetes the defeat at the battle of Ipsus was a more serious blow than the failure to defeat the Rhodeans a few years earlier had done.21

In The Life of Demetrius writes Plutarch within section 23 discusses how Demetrius I Poliorcetes was able to maintain his political and military position despite the shattering defeat at Ipsus. The Life of Demetrius is not the only source that notes that Demetrius I Poliorcetes remained a very determined foe for Cassander, the defeat at Ipsus being a grave but not a fatal setback to the strategic and military position Demetrius I Poliorcetes found himself in.22 The battle of Ipsus did not allow Cassander the opportunity to defeat Demetrius I Poliorcetes once and for all as might have been expected in the immediate aftermath of his victory. Cassander follows up his victory at Ipsus by tightening his political and military control over Macedonia where he had been proclaimed its king four years previously. The Life of Demetrius in section 23 depicts Demetrius I Poliorcetes as patiently waiting for his chance to avenge Cassander, and to wreak his revenge via tactics of subterfuge as well as through decisive military victories. Demetrius I Poliorcetes was well regarded for his patience in seeking to gain revenge against Cassander and the Macedonian King’s family. Cassander’s death in 299 BC presented Demetrius I Poliorcetes with the opportunity they had been waiting for, the chance to become the King of Macedonia. When Cassander died the Macedonian throne passed to his underage son Alexander V. Cassander had gained his powerful position by eliminating the heirs of his main rivals, so it was ironic that Demetrius I Poliorcetes did the same by having his son murdered in 294 BC.23

With Cassander and his son Alexander V both dead Demetrius I Poliorcetes might have readily assumed that staying, as the King of Macedonia would not be a difficult or serious problem. In section 24 of The Life of Demetrius instead depicts a situation in which Demetrius I Poliorcetes was falling out of favour in both Greece and also Macedonia. Throughout his military and also his political career Demetrius I Poliorcetes had seen his position wax and wane with each successive victory or defeat.24 He had defeated and had also been defeated by Ptolemy and Cassander two of his greatest rivals. The gist of Plutarch’s contention is that the Greeks and also the Macedonians were concerned about the lack of political stability and the constant wars being fought between these fierce rivals. The problem for Demetrius I Poliorcetes was that gaining control of Greece and also Macedonia was still an attractive proposition for men with great ambitions to subdue or conquer. Greece was more divided than it had ever been whilst Alexander the Great had been alive. A ruler such as Demetrius I Poliorcetes might have believed that he had managed to gain full control over all of Greece only for some of the city-states to go out and reassert their independence. In that sense it is not surprising that The Life of Demetrius depicts that Demetrius I Poliorcetes was falling out of favour with his nominal subjects. Whilst ordinary people in the numerous Greek city states and Macedonians might not have much influence over who controlled them the aristocracy and the landowners usually could.25

Arguably it would not have been too bad for Demetrius I Poliorcetes it be falling out of favour if there had not been rivals available to deprive him of his processions in Greece and Macedonia. Unfortunately for Demetrius I Poliorcetes there were two powerful rivals in the form of Lymachus and Pyrrhus that took control of Macedonia away from him in 88 BC. The territories Demetrius I Poliorcetes had gained control of in Greece were held securely enough under the rule of his son Antigonus II Gonatus. Maintaining control of Greece was never an easy task for Demetrius I Poliorcetes or any of his contemporaries for that matter, as military power had to be combined with a high level of political astuteness.26 Demetrius I Poliorcetes certainly had always shown great skills as a military leader and as a political leader as well. In The Life of Demetrius, Plutarch does argue that the position of falling out of favour is his former subjects in Macedonia seemed to have no qualms about switching their allegiance to those that took the Macedonians crown away from him. Given the political instability and the inability of any single ruler to establish a permanent military hegemony in the region it is not surprising that any people were prepared to transfer their loyalty as soon as every single regime had taken place. In section 24 of The Life of Demetrius, Plutarch shows sound awareness of military and political reality in the classical world, namely those amongst the most skilled military leaders, and political rulers faced the very real prospects of ruin if they were defeated rivals. Aside from Alexander the Great few rulers in this period could afford to relax, as there was always someone around that wanted to take everything away from them.27

Over all it could be argued that Plutarch presents a relevant and most accurate account of the life as well as the achievements of Demetrius I Poliorcetes, as the successor of his father, Antigonus I Monophthlmus. Given though Plutarch wrote The Life of Demetrius some three centuries after D death the accounts in sections 22, 23, and 24 can generally be assumed to be reliable and relatively impartial. Plutarch in The Life of Demetrius does demonstrate an admiration of Demetrius I Poliorcetes skills as a military leader and also his astuteness in political affairs as well. In section 22 of The Life of Demetrius Plutarch acknowledges that although the attack against the Rhodeans was ultimately unsuccessful it still amply demonstrated his undoubted skills as a military commander. Section 22 notes that Demetrius I Poliorcetes was a military commander that was not afraid of using innovative tactics, techniques and weapons in order to achieve his objectives. The Life of Demetrius in section 22 acknowledges that Demetrius was a very skilled commander when it came to conducting siege warfare.28

The information about the siege of Rhodes stands up well to being examined in conjunction with other accounts of these events. In section 23 of The Life of Demetrius Plutarch portrays D as being an implacable enemy of Cassander. There is a great deal of surviving evidence about his bitter rivalry between D and Cassander that verifies Plutarch’s account of what happened. Plutarch rightly mentions Demetrius I Poliorcetes’s grim determination to carry on the struggle even after the shattering defeat at Ipsus; he would aim to regain all that he had lost and more besides. As far as Plutarch was concerned that way in which Demetrius I Poliorcetes waited to avenge Cassander by taking Macedonia off the latter’s son was a typical example of his political astuteness, not to mention ruthlessness. Finally, section 24 of The Life of Demetrius is a sound evaluation of the reasons why Demetrius I Poliorcetes lost some of his territories especially Macedonia in the last few years of his life. However, losing favour amongst his subjects was arguably not as harmful as the emergence of new and younger rivals that were determined to wrestle control of Macedonia away from him, which they actually achieved in 88BC.29

Unfortunately for Demetrius I Poliorcetes the gaining control of Greece, parts of Asia Minor and also Macedonia was still an attractive proposition for men with great ambitions to subdue or conquer. Wherever he went he faced rivals and enemies with similar skills, and levels of determination to succeed that match his own. Demetrius I Poliorcetes as a highly experienced military leader made such meticulous preparations before attacking the Rhodeans as he expected them to put up a stem resistance to his army’s attacks against them. He was also well aware of the difficulties he faced before he had any realistic chance of finally taking the island. Plutarch implies that Demetrius I Poliorcetes was well aware of the difficulties he faced in defeating the Rhodeans due to his previous experience of warfare and sieges in particular. Demetrius I Poliorcetes knew that the Rhodeans were actually in some very strong defensive positions and were well led before he decided to attack them. Demetrius I Poliorcetes had shown his skills as a military leader he was unable to take the wealthy prize of Rhodes after all. Plutarch’s account of the siege of Rhodes seems to tally pretty closely in detail to other descriptions given by other writers and remaining witness accounts. Throughout his military and also his political career Demetrius I Poliorcetes had seen his position wax and wane with each successive victory or defeat. He had defeated and had also been defeated by Ptolemy and Cassander two of his greatest rivals, yet neither defeated him completely.

Hellenistic Civilisation-Tarn,W.W.-Routledge

The Hellenistic Age-Tarn,W.W.-New York The Hellenistic Age,A History-Wallbank,W.A.-Cambridge The Hellenistic World From Alexander to the Roman Conquest-Stewart,A.-Cambridge Primary Source, Plutarch, Life of Demetrius-www.attalus.org/old/demetrius1.html The Greek Questions of Plutarch-Plutarch.Arno Press Plutarchs Lives-Wardman, London

Crystal D, (1998) The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Hammond N, (1991) The Miracle that was Macedonia, Sidgwick and Jackson, London

Lane Fox R, (2005) The Classical World – An epic history of Greece and Rome, Penguin, London & New York

Lenman B P (2004) Chambers Dictionary of World History 2nd edition, Chambers, Edinburgh

Speake, (1994) The Penguin Dictionary of Ancient History, Penguin, London

1 Speake, 1994 p. 197

2 Hammond, 1991 p. 92

3 The Hellenistic Age-Tarn,W.W.

4 Warry, 1998 p. 114

5 The Hellenistic Age-Tarn,W.W.

6 The Greek Questions of Plutarch-Plutarch.Arno Press Plutarchs Lives-Wardman, London

7 Lane Fox, 2005 p. 244

8 Hellenistic Civilisation-Tarn,W.W.

9 Hellenistic Civilisation-Tarn,W.W.-

10 Warry, 1998 p. 117

11 Speake, 1994 p. 197

12 The Greek Questions of Plutarch-Plutarch.Arno Press Plutarchs Lives-Wardman, London

13 Crystal, 1998 p. 750

14 Lane Fox, 2005 p. 247

15 Lane Fox, 2005 p. 246

16 www.attalus.org/old/demetrius1.html

17 Warry, 1998 p. 118

18 Speake, 1994 p. 197

19 Lenman,2004 p. 120

20 Warry, 1998 p. 119

21 www.attalus.org/old/demetrius1.html

22 Lane Fox, 2005 p. 249

23 Speake, 1994 p. 197

24 www.attalus.org/old/demetrius1.html

25 www.attalus.org/old/demetrius1.html

26 www.attalus.org/old/demetrius1.html

27 Hellenistic Civilisation-Tarn,W.W

28 Speake, 1994 p. 197

29 The Greek Questions of Plutarch-Plutarch.Arno Press Plutarchs Lives-Wardman, London

By Guy Towe

             There are many assertions to be heard and read about the Man of Sin, a veritable kaleidoscope of opinions and interpretations, a sea, or a flood rather, to carry away the truth of it in the maelstrom.  But at least one truth can be firmly known: the revealed prophecies shroud his identity in mystery.  Yes, even his name is encrypted.  There must be some compelling reasons for God to purposefully seal up these things only to be understood in the fullness of time.  I now believe I understand at least some of this enigma, and if that is true, then it can only be that the time draws near indeed. 

Despite knowing that God had chosen to hide the matter, it was not without hope of success that I embarked on the quest for revelation; my understanding of the signs of the times told me that the return of the Lord could be imminent.  Perhaps now, on the eve of the end times, the Lord would be inclined to reveal it.

And I had a starting place: Revelation 17 talks about Babylon the Great and the beast she rides, including the following verses: 

 8The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction.  The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come. 9This calls for a mind with wisdom.  The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.  10They are also seven kings.  Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while.  11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king.  He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.  (NIV)

Therefore, my first task was an attempt to identify all seven kings, and then to see which of the first 5 was also the 8th.  I constructed a chart with seven rows and different columns for information like Name, date, key facts, etc.  In slot 6 I penciled in the name of the Roman emperor Domitian, who reigned during the time John wrote the Revelation, sometime around 96 AD, (give or take a few years.)

A personality profile of Domitian exposes some unique characteristics:  ascended to the throne by the murder of a sibling, (his older brother Titus), came into power at a young age, sexually deviant, persecuted Christians, was assassinated after a relatively short reign, and to cap it off, he claimed that he himself was a god, worthy to be worshiped as a god.  This last characteristic of an extreme tyrant seems perhaps the most significant, especially since Domitian wanted desperately to believe in his own divinity, and thus immortality. 

If there had been only 5 Roman emperors prior to Domitian then search over, mystery solved!  But there were eleven, and it couldn’t possibly be that easy anyway.  Perhaps what I was looking for was the personality profile of the evil king in Daniel 11, a sort of common ‘spirit’ that linked these sovereigns throughout the centuries to each other.  (1 John 4: And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.)  Working backwards from Domitian through preceding rulers I came to Nero, who proved to be a perfect fit.  Nero went into slot 5.

Before Nero was Claudius, who wasn’t even close to the profile, yet his young nephew Caligula, whom Claudius succeeded, does fit.  I will skip the history lesson on Caligula and leave that for personal study, because it is a disgusting descent into debauchery and murder, to the point of turning the Senate into a brothel staffed by the Senator’s wives, in order to bring in more money to fund the Emperor’s excesses.  His own bodyguard assassinated him with what would these days be called “extreme prejudice”.  Caligula went into slot 4.

            Then I ran into a problem.  Having first looked at and then rejected Tiberius, Augustus, and Julius Caesar, I was unsure where in history to look next.  But I remembered the vision of the beasts in Daniel, and since the Greek kingdoms immediately pre-date the Roman Empire, I began to look at the Hellenistic Kingdoms that were the offshoots of the Empire of Alexander the Great.  Three great houses:  the Ptolemys of Egypt, the Antigonids of Macedonia, and the Seleucids of Syria, (the fourth part of Alexander’s empire, the kingdom of Lysimachus, produced no great leaders.)

            After an exhaustive search of the Ptolemys and the Antigonids, I came up empty handed.  But the house of Seleucid, the kings who figure so prominently in the 11th chapter of Daniel and in the wars of the Maccabees, soon began to present candidates for consideration.  King Antiochus IV, self-titled “Epiphany”, clearly matches the profile, and his actions were foretold in Daniel 11 verses 21-35.  He goes into slot 3.

            Working my way backwards then through the Syrian kings, and paying close attention to the narrative of Daniel 11, I found it difficult to choose between several nauseating tyrants of the Hellenistic era.  One of them, Seleucus II, fought a civil war against his brother, and slew him in combat upon the field of battle to win the kingdom.  He used to hold court naked, since a God could dress or undress any way he felt.  I put Seleucus II into slot 2.

            Then I came face to face with the founder of the Greek Kingdoms, a man of whom more has been written than any other human except the Lord Jesus Himself.  A student of Alexander’s biography is immediately overwhelmed by the flood of propaganda both pro and con, which has obscured the truth about him and blended his narrative with legend. The ancient historians: Polybius, Plutarch, Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Justin to name a few all complained of the difficulty of sorting through conflicting accounts to excise the fabrications and retain the fact.  Mythification began prior to his death and continued into the Roman times, and still today we hear of the legends of Iskander throughout the Middle East.  Is it possible, after all these years and history rewrites, to arrive at the truth?  Something all the accounts agree upon:  Alexander stated that he was a god, and required men to worship him as a god.  Daniel 8 verse 21:  The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first great king.  It seems appropriate to put Alexander into slot 1.

          After having identified (tentatively), the first six kings, I looked forward from the time of the Emperor Domitian, to see which one would go into slot 7.  The seventh has an additional clue from the scriptures:  he must remain for a while.  After research I put Commodus into slot 7.  I hope no one will simply take my word on these things, but investigate the matter on his or her own. 

          Some time after the reign of Commodus came Constantine, who abolished pagan worship, stopped the persecutions, and set up Christianity as the state religion.  From those days onward the Emperor was the acknowledged agent of God, but never again considered a god himself.  Constantine’s own proclamation sets the stage for the Middle Ages and every king that came after:  “There is one God, one empire, and one emperor!”

          So what about the eighth king, the one who once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction?  This king is one of the seven, in fact one of the five fallen ones, but which one?  Are there deeper clues? 

           Revelation 13:  3One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed.  The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.  4Men worshipped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshipped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast?  Who can make war against him?”  Then the last verse of chapter 13:  This calls for wisdom.  If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is a man’s number.  His number is 666. 

           All of the interpretations I had at that time heard about the number 666 related to the bad guy of the end times.  What if the number is the value of his name when he was on earth the first time?  What if this guy was so well known in ancient times that his name had to be encrypted to keep it a secret?  Which of the fallen five is he?

           The first clue, the fatal wound that was healed, fit perfectly with only one of the five, Alexander, who sustained an arrow wound that punctured his lung during an assault on the citadel of Multan in the Indian Punjab.  After the arrow was removed he fainted, and the word went out that the king had died, but later they noticed that he was still alive.  Once it became known that he had survived the terrible wound, the rest of the neighboring kingdoms came and presented themselves in surrender. 

           The second clue has to do with his military prowess.  Who can make war against him?  If someone were to ask the question, “Who is the greatest general that ever lived?”  There is only one name in history, repeated by the likes of Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Macarthur, Patton, and Schwartzkopf:  Alexander the Great.

           The third clue is that the number of his name calculates out to 666.  Therefore, I tried to calculate the numeric value of all of the king’s names.  In ancient Greek there were no numerals, but instead the letters of the alphabet were assigned a number value, and a period was placed after the letter to show that it was a number and not a letter.  Any school child could easily calculate the value of anyone’s name by simply adding the value of each of the letters.  I had to attempt to translate the Roman names into Greek before I could calculate their values, with very unreliable results.  The first pass through the names revealed none even close, and although after some manipulation one can get the name Nero Caesar to come out with the correct numeric values, I remained skeptical of such number bending.  Then I realized that Alexander was known as “the great”, so I recalculated. I used an English-Greek Interlinear Bible to find the spelling of the name Alexander, and “the Great” from “Babylon the Great”.  I used Webster’s Greek Dictionary to find the numeric values of the Greek alphabet. 

A l e x a n d r o s   h  M e g a l h n

1     30   5   60    1   50   4  100 70  200       8       40    5    3   1    30    8    50   The sum of those numbers is 666.

            My hand began to tremble and a chill ran down my spine.

            I began to re-read the prophecies, now with the identity of the beast in mind, and suddenly dark verses began to take on new light.

            Isaiah 14: 4That you will take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, “9Hell from beneath is excited about you, to meet you at your coming.  It stirs up the dead for you, all the chief ones of the earth.  It has raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.  10They all shall speak and say to you; ‘Have you also become as weak as we?  Have you become like us?’  11Your pomp is brought down to hell.  12How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!  13For you have said in your heart:  ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; 14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’  15Yet you shall be brought down to Hell, to the lowest depths of the Pit.  16Those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you, saying:  ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, 17who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, who did not open the house of his prisoners?’

            18All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, everyone in his own house; 19but you are cast out of your grave like an abominable branch, like the garment of those who are slain, thrust through with a sword, who go down to the stones of the pit, like a corpse trodden underfoot.  20You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land and slain your people.  The offspring of evildoers shall never be named.  21Prepare slaughter for his children because of the iniquity of their father, lest they rise up and possess the land, and fill the face of the world with cities.”

            I always thought these verses were talking about Satan, yet a close examination shows that the subject of the prophecy is a man, because he has died and in verse 16 they call him a man.  The accomplishments of this king of Babylon fit perfectly with the life of Alexander.  Both of his sons were murdered, the first, the son of Barsine, by Roxanne a rival queen who was at that time pregnant, and then twelve years later she and her son were repaid in kind by Cassander the son of Antipater.  Alexander’s titles included the following:  King of Macedonia, Hegemon (Military Leader) of the Greek States, Pharaoh Son of Zeus-Ammon, King of Babylon, The Great King of Persia, (also called the King of Kings), and months before he died in Babylon, he forced the Hellenistic world to declare that he was a god.  His body was placed in a glass coffin in his temple in Alexandria, and was on display for 500 years.  Julius Caesar remarked about how Alexander was incredibly preserved some 300 years after his death and appeared to be only sleeping.  Gaius Octavian Caesar Augustus, when he had secured his control of the Roman Empire, danced amid flowers before coffin of Alexander.   The Emperor Caligula claimed to be the inheritor of Alexander, and took the golden body armor from his mummy and wore it himself. 

           When Constantine became the Roman Emperor, as mentioned earlier, he instituted Christianity as the state religion, and outlawed all of the pagan worship, including that of the cult of Alexander.   Sometime in the early fourth century AD, the mummy of Alexander was moved and his tomb, like all of the tombs of the Ptolemaic dynasty, remains hidden to this day.  I believe, however, that verse 19 predicts that the tomb of Alexander will be found.

            There is another question about this prophecy: why is he called Lucifer, the son of the dawn?  Does this relate to a demonic parentage?  Is Alexander Satan’s very own son?  I can think of no one else in all of history who qualifies as well.  The verse in Revelation 17 that we looked at earlier, talks about the beast who once was, now is not, and yet come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction.  The verse in Isaiah shows that he will first go down to the pit, which is the Hebrew name for the Abyss.

            Revelation 9:  1Then the fifth angel sounded:  and I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth.  To him was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss.  2And he opened the shaft of the Abyss, and smoke arose out of the pit like the smoke of a great furnace.   3Then out of the smoke locusts came upon the earth….  11And they had as king over them the angel of the shaft of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.

            Isaiah 19:18:  In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts; one will be called the City of Destruction. 

           Historically, Alexandria and the Nile delta have been an enclave for Judaism and Christianity.  Both Abaddon and Apollyon mean ‘destroyer’.  Therefore it is conclusive that Alexander is the eight king, who was, then not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss; Alexandria is the City of Destruction, (or ‘the city of the Destroyer’) and Alexander is Abaddon, the king of the shaft of the Abyss.  In an interesting parallel with Jesus’ name for himself, Alexander would be both the first and the last of the evil kings. One thing is for certain, Alexander the Great was no ordinary human being.

            Even in the Koran is Alexander mentioned:  Sura 18:  82They will ask you of Dhoulkarnain, the two horned.  Say:  I will recite to you an account of him.  83We established his power on earth and made a way for him to everything.  And a route he followed, 84until he reached the setting of the sun, and he found it to set in a marshy wellspring, and nearby he found a people.  85We said, ‘O Dhoulkarnain, either chastise or treat them generously’

            86‘The unholy,’ said he, ‘we will surely chastise.  87But as to him who believes and does that which is right, he shall have a generous recompense, and we will lay on them our easy behests.’

            88Then followed he a route 89until he reached the rising of the sun, and he found it to rise on a people to whom we had given no shelter from it.  90Thus it was.  And we had full knowledge of the forces that were with him.

            91Then he followed a route 92until he came between the two mountains, beneath which he found a people who scarce understood a language.  93They said, ‘O Dhoulkarnain, verily, Gog and Magog waste this land; shall we then pay you tribute, so you can build a rampart between us and them?’

            94He said, ‘Better than your tribute is the might wherewith Allah has strengthened me; but help me strenuously, and I will set a barrier between you and them.  95Bring me blocks of iron,’ –until when it filled the space between the mountain sides- ‘Ply your bellows,’ –until when he had made it red with fire, ‘Bring me molten brass that I may pour upon it.’  96And Gog and Magog were not able to scale it, neither were they able to dig through it.  97‘This,’ said he, ‘is a mercy from Allah:  98but when the promise of Allah shall come to pass, he will turn it to dust; and the promise of Allah is true.’

            99On that day we will let them dash like billows one over another; and there shall be a blast on the trumpet, and we will gather them together in a body.  100And we will set Hell on that day close by the infidels.

            I quote the Koran here simply because I think it is significant that Mohammad and Allah wanted to take credit for Alexander’s exploits.  Moreover, if Alexander does return, then Islam will accept him as their protector, enforcer, and king.

            The final question then is how does the eighth king return?  I believe the bible when it says that it is given to men once to die, and then the judgment.  I do not therefore believe in reincarnation, but I do believe in a resurrection.  Still, the prophecy is clear that the eighth king does indeed return to the earth, and though he is a unique human individual, yet he is also everything of his first manifestation.  I have not been able to find any scriptures that explain how the man of sin returns to earth, but I am still looking.

            If you will indulge me, I can supply a scientific theory.  Let us suppose that they do discover the tomb of Alexander, and they are able to get a good enough DNA sample that they can give birth to a clone.  Since the only difference between any kind of life on earth is the sequence of it’s base-pairs, our spirits must be linked to the physical world through DNA, (having all those little strings vibrating with the same frequency in a liquid medium creates harmonics and standing waves), and re-animating the DNA of a deceased person by cloning may restore the spirit right from the point of death as if it had never stopped. 

           If it becomes fashionable to specify in one’s will that after death their body be cloned, and all their estate be inherited by the clone; then mankind will have attained to a form of immortality and will no longer need God or have fear of judgment after death, (although what then we do about the world’s population is anybody’s guess).  And how can we resist the urge to clone famous dead-people and resurrect them, so to speak?  Shall we bring back Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Napoleon, St. Peter, King David, Pharaoh Ramses, or especially Alexander the Great?

           The spirit of Alexander would be reincarnated by the re-birth of his own body.  Would he have memories?  I think not, but he might have dreams from his spirit of those memories and might at some point in his growth realize who he is.  To the world, the clone of Alexander would be the sensation of all time.  Islam would accept him, and he would find an army of devoted followers fanatically loyal to his person.  And if he retained any of the ambition and genius of his first tour of earth, then world conquest will be his unstoppable destiny. 

            According to Daniel 7: 21I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, 22until the ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in  favor of the saints of the most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.  Revelation 13:  5And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.  6Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.  7It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.  And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.  

          I believe that the time draws near.  Everyone will be given the choice: accept Alexander and a new ecumenical one-world faith, or find your rest in the grave.  Few will be those true Christians that are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, but when the power of the holy people has been finally broken, the Jesus will return with great glory and the mighty angels of heaven to execute judgement on earth, to ressurect the righteous, and usher in the eternal kingdom.

During the times of ancient Greece, perhaps one of the most influential and known powers was Macedonia. Macedonia’s empire existed from the 800s BC to 146 BC and is principally known for the accomplishments of it’s leaders: Phillip II and his son, Alexander the Great[1]. Phillip II worked internally in the regions near Greece strengthening his country, while Alexander operated very far from Greece, conquering much of the known world.  Both of these leaders are two very different people, which makes them hard to compare, but a question arises; to what extent was Alexander greater than Phillip II? The purpose of this essay is to examine both leaders’ accomplishments in order to decipher which one was more distinguished. The two major historiographical views concerning this subject are that: a) Alexander was greater and was a superior commander because of the sheer amount of land he conquered, which was strikingly more than Phillip had, and b) Phillip had forged both a united country and an unstoppable army, which Alexander depended on for his conquests. Over the course of this essay, this historical debate will be addressed by examining both Phillip’s triumphs and Alexander’s triumphs. Phillip II and Alexander the Great are equally great, as Alexander defeated the Persians and conquered most of the known world, but it would have been impossible for him to do it, had Phillip not created an unbeatable army and a united country.

Phillip was in large part, responsible Alexander’s success as he developed the unsurpassed army and military tactics that Alexander used, which is what makes him better. Many steps went into the development of Macedonia’s famous army. From 370 to 360 BC, Phillip was held hostage in Thebes and during this time, he observed the military techniques of the Thebans under the great tactician Epaminondas.[2] After he was released from the Thebans, he made a crucial move to reorganize the Macedonian army into a powerful phalanx[3] that could counter the Thebans. He introduced new weapons such as the 14-21 foot sarissa[4] (two handed spear), which reinforced the phalanx. Phillip made the military a way of life for his soldiers and paid them enough so that they didn’t need to leave to farm; in return he got a very loyal and dependable army. During the Illyrian invasion of Macedonia c. 359 BC, Phillip successfully perfected his newly developed Phalanx and expelled the Illyrians with no trouble[5]. Phillip’s phalanx was especially dominant because it offered melee strength with discipline, to create a quick but powerful force. Because of his victory over the Illyrians, he liberated northern Macedonian cantons, which in return became loyal to him and joined his army. Nearly overnight, Phillip’s army grew, which allowed him to successfully invade Illyria all the way to the Adriatic coast. Phillip created the distinctive Macedonian phalanx, but he also trained some of the world’s greatest generals of that time, such as Antigonus Cyclops, Antipater, Nearchus and Parmenion, who were key figures in Alexander’s campaigns later on. Phillip not only commanded an innovative army force, but he was also a military genius. He created the new tactic of siege-craft[6]. Phillip left his mark on siege warfare by advancing the development of torsion catapults, which helped him assemble an advanced siege train. These advancements not only helped Phillip during his campaigns but also were used by Alexander during his major sieges, such as the siege of Tyre, which in turn brought him victory. Although Phillip II did not do much conquering outside of the regions of Greece, he developed the incredible Macedonian phalanx, he amassed loyal soldiers and generals, and revolutionized siege warfare. Most importantly, Alexander’s campaigns would not have been possible without these developments.

Phillip II united his country and through doing so, he gained power. Alexander did not accomplish this, as he fed off of what Phillip had already done. When Phillip rose to the throne of Macedonia in 359 BC, there were many people trying to take the throne. He quickly created alliances and subdued anyone who opposed him. He strengthened loyalties by taking various actions such as marrying Olympia and he conquered what he saw would be beneficial for his empire. For example, he conquered the Athenian colony of Amphipolis in Thrace (357 BC), which historians see as a key move as it gave him possession to the gold mines of Mount Pangaeus, which financed his empire and Alexander’s military later on[7]. He also conquered Potidea in Chalidice, Pynda on the Thermaic Gulf and Crenides in Thrace. With all these places under his control, he earned a seat in the Delphic council[8]. When Thebes and Athens rebelled against him in 338 BC, at the battle of Chaeronea, he defeated them, securing his rule and thus uniting the country. Unlike Alexander, Phillip started out threatened to lose control of his country, but then he united it and gained power. Overall this is a key move that distinguishes Phillip II from Alexander.

The reason Alexander would be considered greater than Phillip II is because he was able to defeat the Persian Empire and then conquered most of the known world, which Phillip failed to achieve. Alexander truly had a profound impact on history as stated by Tomas R. Martin, an American historian: “Alexander is a legend, but he’s not a myth. He’s real. What he did – for better or for worse – shows in the starkest and most exciting terms the lack of limits of human possibility.”[9]  Alexander was great because of his leadership, which he showed even before he became king. In 340 BC when king Phillip went to fight rebels in Byzantium, Alexander who was only 16 showed his leadership by becoming regent of Macedonia[10]. Alexander also showed superior intelligence and physical prowess from a young age, since Aristotle and Leonidas tutored him. At 18 years old, he helped his father win the battle of Chaeronea, which demonstrated his keen future in military success. When he became king, he had to subdue such threats as the Triballi and the Thebans. The Thebans were not supporting him, so in 2 weeks, he marched his army 250 miles and obliterated Thebes.[11] With the fall of Thebes, many of once defiant Greek city-states supported him. With this new gathered support, he launched a war against the super power of his era, the Persians. This decision is a good example of why Alexander is so great. He began the war against Persia in 334 BC by crossing the Hellespont with 35,000 Macedonians and 7,600 Greeks.[12]  At his first battle with the Persians on the Granicus River, Alexander was heavily outnumbered, however using superior military tactics, he defeated them and according to legend, only lost 110 men.[13] Throughout the campaign through Persia, Alexander was also outnumbered on the sea; he had 160 ships and the Persians had 400[14]. To overcome this disadvantage, Alexander brilliantly conquered all Persia’s major seaports, which deprived Persia of it’s Anatolian naval strength and manpower resources.[15] This demonstrates Alexander’s ability to adapt to a difficult situation and come out on top. Later, in 333 BC Alexander confronted Darius (the Persian leader) at Issus and although outnumbered again, he was able to win. Probably one of his most notable victories would be the battle of Tyre. Alexander was great because he could come up with creative ways to beat his enemy; since Tyre was a heavily fortified island, he had his masterful engineers build a causeway over the water, from the mainland to the gate of the fort[16]. After building the causeway, he used advanced siege machines to soften the fort’s defenses. Alexander gained a foothold in Persia by defeating the Tyrians, which allowed him to advance further. In 328 BC Alexander crushed the Persians at Guagamela, which historians feel “sealed the deal in blood” for Alexander to conquer Persia.[17] By around 323 BC, Alexander had toppled the mighty Persian Empire by using creative and superior strategy. And after he conquered land, he used Mercenary infantry to man garrisons, so that way they could defend the new territory and Alexander could continue expanding. After conquering Persia, he ventured on through a large chunk of Asia, all the way to the Indus Valley in India[18]. He stopped here only because harsh weather and homesickness caused some of his men to mutiny[19].  To summarize, over the course of only a few years, Alexander was able to conquer the entire Persian Empire and territory all the way to India. Using his natural leadership, cunning mind and creative strategy, he was able to overcome disadvantages and ultimately earn the heroic epithet – The Great. By the end of his campaign, he controlled land from Macedonia, to Egypt, to India. For this reason, Alexander could be considered greater than Phillip II, whose empire was only in Macedonia.

Phillip II and Alexander the Great are two very different people. Alexander was able to topple the super powers of his era, like Persia and expanded his empire all the way from Macedonia to India.  Phillip II on the other hand, united his country with intelligent moves such as creating alliances and subduing competitors. Furthermore, he crafted not only an unstoppable phalanx, but also other military strategies. While Alexander may have had a more profound impact on the world, there would have been no way he could have done it without the work of his father. And for that reason, Phillip II and Alexander the Great are equally great. Richard A. Gabriel, a history professor claims, “To Phillip belongs the title of the first great general of a new age of warfare in the West… Phillip exceeded Alexander’s triumphs”. [20]A different historian, Elizabeth Carney argues, “He [Alexander] has no failures… he’s the invincible one”. [21] While both historians make valid arguments, it is safe to say that the answer lies in the middle; both men are equally great.

[1] Amy McKenna. The 100 most influential world leaders of all time. New York, USA:Britannica Educational Publishing, 2010. P.25

[2] Lubi Uzunovski. Phillip II, http://faq.macedonia.org/history/philip.html. [Accessed May 1, 2011]

[3] Phalanx: Mass rectangular military formation composed of heavy infantry

[4] Lubi Uzunovski

[5] Ibid

[6] Joseph Roisman. Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great. : Questia School, 2003. P.145

[7] Lubi Uzunovski.

[8] Lubi Uzunovski

[9] Tomas R. Martin, (quoted in) Alex O’Brien. Alexander the great: the Invisible Enemy. : Questia School, 1994 P. 153

[10] Paul Cartledge.  Alexander the Great: A new Life. : Overlook Hardcover, 2004. P.180

[11] Joseph Roisman P.89

[12] James C. Bradford. International Encyclopedia of Military History. Oxfordshire, UK: Cynthia Parzych Publishing Inc., 2006. P. 36

[13] Uzunovski, Lubi

[14] Joseph Roisman P.147

[15]Ibid. P.151

[16] Paul Cartledge P.184

[17] Joseph Roisman P.152

[18] Ibid. P.153

[19] Ibid. P.153

[20] Richard A. Gabriel (quoted in) Alex O’Brien

[21] Elizabeth Carney (quoted in) Alex O’Brien