Back to: Article Catalog

The Greek belief in daimon was not a concept foreign to other cultures co-existing and in conflict during the campaigns of Alexander. The pre-Zoroastrianism Persian belief in fravashi was very similar.[11] A fravashi was believed to be a spiritual world counterpart that should not be confused with modern concepts of a ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’. Although the fravashi illustrates a spiritual world replica, it was thought of more in terms of a spiritual twin; the same yet independent. This concept was highly developed in Egyptian belief as well, and when the Egyptians worshipped their royal rulers they were worshipping that ruler’s ka; an entity eternally connected with the person, but yet independent of the mortal. Neither the Persian belief of fravashi, nor the Egyptian belief in ka, were alien to the Greek belief in daimon.[12] Furthermore, one only has to remember the example of Socrates (d.399 BC),[13] and his belief in his personal daimon to understand the religious context in which mortal men’s divinity may have been placed. However, it is not certain whether or not this was the religious context Philip II, Alexander’s most familiar precedent, had in mind when he began to entertain notions of divinity. 

Many notable scholars, including Ernst Badian, believe that Philip II was the only true precedent for Alexander,[14] and there are several examples of Philip in context with religious imagery. These include Philip’s role in the Sacred War, at which he ordered his soldiers to wear laurel crowns at the Battle of the Crocus Field (352 BC), and thus Philip became “... the avenger of the god, and the defender of religion.”[15] Furthermore, Philip had already received such divine honours as having his portrait statue ‘living with’ Artemis at Epheus,[16] and also there were the altars erected to Zeus Philippios at Eresus.[17] However, what is perhaps the most important example of Philip in context with the divine is when he had himself displayed as statuary, along side of and in procession with the twelve Olympians of the Greek pantheon, just prior to his assassination (336 BC).[18] If Philip was not courting the attention of citizens’ assemblies to bestow divine honours on him, then what was he doing? In the article, “Alexander the Great between two thrones and Heaven”,[19] Badian believes that the motive behind Philip’s actions was to align himself with the Greeks’ perception of the religious persona of the Great King of Persia.Badian draws upon literary evidence such as Aeschylus’ (524-456 BC) descriptions of the Persian royal family in terms of ‘god-like’, and as ‘gods’,[20] to illustrate. Yet, if this was the Greek view on Persian belief we have to accept that the Greeks, or more especially the Macedonians, had no understanding of Persian court belief and protocol. In many ways this seems unlikely due to the fact that Persia and Macedonia (as well as the rest of the Greek states) had close political contact with the Persians at least since the time of Darius I (r.521-486 BC). For the Persian view of rulers and the divine was within the context of Zoroastrianism, or more properly Mazadayasna.[21]Mazadayasna was and is essentially a monotheistic religion, but it is also based on a dualism of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as well.[22] Thus, the great god, Azhurmazda , is in continual conflict with the evil in the world that is inherent in the deavas.[23] The king was not seen as a god, or even like a god, but as an instrument acting on behalf of Azhurmazda in a divine rule. Thus, due to the holiness of his office, when the Great King held court he sat with his feet elevated off the ground, and people covered their mouths in his presence so as not to taint his air with their earthly pollution.[24] Therefore, the Great King enjoyed a divine rule, but he was not essentially a divine ruler. This is the concept that the Greeks supposedly misunderstood. Moreover, perhaps as A.B. Bosworth suggests, Aeschylus’ literary examples are the exception rather than the rule, and thus they do not illustrate any real Graeco/Persian misunderstandings.[25] However, Philip may have been motivated to be both bestowed with divine honours, and to make himself a worthy enemy of the Great King of Persia through imitation. But, if the Persians were worshipping any aspect of their king, as Aeschylus suggest, it would have had to been within the context of the pre- Mazadayasna belief of fravashi .

It is this belief of the fravashi and the corresponding Greek belief in daimon that illustrates that the ruler cult was never a heroic cult. Divine honours were bestowed upon living men, and were never heroic chthonic honours, but instead were associated with the gods through the understanding of the daimon.[26] As S.R.F. Price has illustrated the “Ruler cult had a different explanation; it was carefully distanced from heroic cult and was played off the background of the cult of the gods.”[27] This certainly illustrates why Philip had himself enthroned with the gods, and was ‘like a god’; not like a hero. Moreover, the religious context can best be illustrated in view of the hymn sung in honour of Demetrius Poliocetes in Athens at the end of the 4th century. 

The other gods are far away or do not have ears

or do not exist or do not pay any attention at all

to us, but you we see present, not of wood or stone 

but real.” (Hymn to Demetrius Poliocetes)[28]

This hymn illustrates not only the practice of a man being worshipped as a god; but that this man is an improvement of the traditional gods. Thus, this hymn suggests that ‘putting men up as gods’ helped the public reconcile a growing chasm between popular philosophical thought and the state civic religion.[29] Thus, the time of Alexander was a time of shifts in religious thought, and changes in religious practices. It was in this type of religious climate that Alexander developed the belief in his own divinity and conquered the world.

Part II

However, an unusual aspect of the divinity of Alexander is that even though divine honours were being bestowed upon living men, and his father Philip seemed to have been receiving cult;[30]Philip was perceived more as ‘like a god’, whereas Alexander was perceived more ‘as a god’. Moreover, Alexander seems to have made the leap from ‘like a god’ to ‘a god’ with his visit to the shrine of Ammon at Siwah as described in Plutarch.[31] It seems that this visit was the foundation of Alexander’s own beliefs in his divinity, and it was the catalyst event for him receiving divine honours. It was after this trip to Ammon that Alexander’s claim as son of Zeus became common place at his court,[32] and the de facto evidence of Alexander’s belief to a direct relationship with the divine is the famous quote “... my so called father...”[33]in reference to Philip II in a letter to the Athenians. However, that Alexander disowned Philip as his father, and recognized instead Zeus as his father, still leaves questions concerning the exact nature of Alexander’s divinity unanswered. What kind of a son of Zeus was Alexander? Was Alexander like the typical product of a god and a mortal, and thus a hero like his ancestors Heracles and Achilles,[34] and therefore in opposition to the usual context of mortal men receiving cult? Or was Alexander another type of divine, more like another son of Zeus and a mortal, Dionysus?

However, that Alexander was genuinely divine and not heroic is a point that our primary sources themselves seem uncomfortable with,[35] and thus they prefer to stress Alexander’s divinity in a heroic construct which was perhaps more consistent with their own beliefs. Plutarch’s, Arrian’s, and even Curtius Rufus’ accounts of Alexander are incessant with references and allusions to the Homeric tradition, as well as to other heroic figures such as Heracles and Perseus.[36] This heroic bias of the ancient sources have led some to believe that Alexander may have seen his own divinity in a more heroic light.[37] However, it could be possible that the heroic link, and especially the Homeric heroiclink, was the link that the ancient biographers wished to forge and was not reflective of Alexander’s own belief. It must be taken into consideration that the biographers were writing hundreds of years after the life of Alexander; and that they were writing near the same time as the gospels of the biblical New Testament were written. Thus, with this coincidence in mind it is perhaps wise to apply the same type of literary criticism to the Alexander sources as theologians apply to the New Testament and ask, “What kind of literature is this?”[38] That this is indeed applicable here is attested to by the distinct religious/mythological content of the Alexander sources, a topic which has been broached by recent scholarship.[39] To further illustrate this literary aspect of the sources is the overall notion of Alexander fulfilling prophecy. Thus, it must be noted that the sources, Plutarch, Arrian, and Curtius Rufus were often reading history back on to itself in order to interpret ‘signs’; therefore forcing the comparisons between Alexander and the heroes for its mythological value. This is not to say that Alexander himself would have never referred to the heroic traditions of his ancestry from time to time; most likely he would have as these were the traditions in which he was most familiar. However, this does not mean that this is the same way he perceived his divinity. Moreover, as Taylor has said, “But divine forebears were too common in those days to give one a claim to distinction.”[40]

Yet, special distinction is something that Alexander certainly wished to have and this is illustrated by Hyperides in, Against Demosthenes, “...you conceded in the Assembly that Alexander might be the son of Zeus and Poseidon too if he wished... wished... to set up a statue of Alexander, the king and god invincible...”[41] This fragment, besides implicating that divine honours were at the nomination of the assembly, also illustrates the manner in which Alexander may have seen himself. Thus, Alexander saw himself as the son of Zeus, and as the king and god invincible. However, the emphasis here is ‘god’, not ‘like a god’, or not as a hero; but rather Alexander ‘wishes’ to be thought of by others as a god, and this implies that this was the way he seen himself as well. However, a question still remains of what kind, or which god was he?

A.B. Bosworth argues that Alexander believed he was Zeus Ammon incarnate.[42]However, this seems to have echoes of the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and thus it is probably not consistent with Alexander’s worldview. Bosworth cites a description of Alexander by Athenaeus, “... at one time putting on the purple robe of Ammon, and thin slippers and horns just like the god’s...”[43] Yet, Alexander’s costuming does not end at dressing up like Ammon, “...at another time the costume of Artemis, which he often wore even in his chariot, wearing the Persian garb and showing above the shoulders the bow and hunting-spear of the goddess...”[44]Does this mean he also thought he was Artemis? The passage also mentions Alexander dressing up as Hermes and even Heracles. Did Alexander have multiple divine personalities? Probably not; but it does show that he liked to dress up at dinner-parties, and at other times as well. The strongest evidence that Alexander may have believed that he was Zeus Ammon incarnate is his depiction as such in art.[45] However, perhaps this was the way that the ancients made associative similes, and thus depicting Alexander in art as Zeus/Zeus Ammon was the artist’s way of proclaiming that ‘Alexander is so great, he is like Zeus.’[46] That this may have been the case is reflected in the fact that Alexander does not seem to have been worshipped as Zeus Ammon, but only as the son of Zeus Ammon.[47] Therefore, it stands to reason that if Alexander was never worshipped as Zeus Ammon incarnate, then Zeus Ammon is probably not who he thought he was.

Nevertheless, Alexander was worshipped in his own life time, and received divine honours from the Greeks.[48] However, it seems that he was worshipped as an aspect of Dionysus.[49] This seems consistent with the traditional sense as well. Dionysus was a son of Zeus and a mortal woman. Furthermore, Alexander’s mother, Olympias, seems to have been a devout worshipper of Dionysus.[50] These are all similarities between Alexander and Dionysus that the ancients (including Alexander himself) would have also perceived, but there are other associations as well. Dionysus was a conquering dipsomaniac traveler, and Alexander’s triumph after his return from India seems to reflect this connection.[51]Ptolemy IV, a descendant of Alexander’s companion Ptolemy, was worshipped as Dionysus,[52] and it must be remembered that after Alexander’s death Ptolemy won the control of Alexander’s remains and took them to Egypt.[53] Moreover, R. M. Errington has illustrated that Ptolemy was the only one of Alexander’s successors who successfully exploited the cult of Alexander in any lasting legacy.[54] Furthermore, Taylor has postulated that the form of proskynesis as described in the sources, which is a proskynesis combined with a toast, was the pre-existing form of the worship of the agathos daimon associated with Dionysus.[55] Thus, we are brought to the infamous Proskynesis Affair.

If Alexander was using Proskynesis as only a form of either religious promotional propaganda, or if it was intended to harmonized his court, it was a huge failure. It is referred to as the ‘Proskynesis Affair’, because it caused discord in Alexander’s court in his own time,[56] and it seems to be a dividing issue for scholars of our time. Affairs are trouble. Bosworth says that the Greeks knew that proskynesis was simply Persian court protocol, but that the Greeks were troubled because of conflicts with their own beliefs.[57] However, Ian Worthington asks why wasn’t Alexander aware of the trouble it would cause, and then suggests that Alexander did not care about the trouble it would cause.[58] Thus, this seems to suggest then that Alexander was not trying to introduce proskynesis as either a method of harmonization to his dual cultural court life, or as a vehicle for divine propaganda purposes. Alexander must have suspected that demanding proskynesis would divide his court and cause trouble if he had any understanding of his court at all. Therefore, he may have introduced it only because he desired to have his divine belief acknowledged by his court, and receive the cult that he likely felt was due to him. Interestingly, this is the reason that the sources themselves suggest was behind the Proskynesis Affair.[59] However, Callisthenes’ trouble with proskynesis, may also indicate a reluctance among Alexander’s comrades to accept Alexander’s belief in his divinity, and thus perhaps Alexander’s beliefs went too far. Alexander’s concept of his divinity may have exceeded what was normal for his time.[60] This is especially conceivable in light ofTaylor’s claim that the type of worship given to Alexander was a ‘pre-existing’ form of cult worship to Dionysus as mentioned above, and thus Alexander’s demands were in a manner ‘heretical’. Nevertheless, it further illustrates that Alexander the Great himself sincerely believed that he was divine. 

Therefore, to conclude there is enough evidence to support the claim that Alexander the Great genuinely believed in his own divinity. First of all there was a cultural context in which a man could sanely support such a belief. It has been shown that there was a growing tradition in the ancient Greek world of living men receiving divine honours in their own life times, including Philip II. It has also been shown that in the religious context this tradition could flourish through the Greek belief of daimons, and that syncretism between Persian, Egyptian and Greek religious beliefs would have probably further facilitated its development.Moreover, the later ancient sources themselves, although somewhat troubled by it, illustrate that Alexander believed in his own divinity. However, the sources would have preferred that his divinity was in the context of heroic mythology, and not as a god. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that Alexander believed the nature of his divinity was derived through his true father, Zeus Ammon, and that this divinity was as a god and not as a hero; which would have been inconsistent with the belief of the age. Furthermore, it seems that the tradition of worship surrounding Alexander the Great was as an aspect of Dionysus, and this seems to be compatible with Alexander’s personal background, character and the continuing cult as illustrated by Ptolemy IV. Therefore, just as Alexander superseded Philip II politically in conquering the Persian empire; he also superseded Philip in religion and made the great leap from ‘like a god’ to a god; if not through his action, then through his belief.