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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The so-called Alexander Romance is the most widely read text about Alexander from the ancient world. An unknown author composed this fantastical piece of Greek historical fiction, which narrates Alexander’s entire life, deeds, and death in an extraordinary fashion. The three books of inventive prose narrative, embedded with about 280 lines of verse, are bookended by stories of the king’s conception (1.1–14) and funeral (3.34). Here the text is appreciated in its ancient context, with the provision of an overview of its central issues, potential solutions to them, and possible future directions for study. Several significant matters are focused on: the constitution of the original Greek text of the Alexander Romance; its problematic dating; its contents and structure; its various sources; its characterization of Alexander; its generic classification; and the possible contexts for its original composition.

This chapter deals with the main issues bearing upon Clitarchus and his work, moving beyond the usual division between Testimonia and Fragmenta and giving attention to the context and the agenda of each writer that mentioned him. Attention is given to his popularity as an Alexander historian and as a fine writer, as well as to the real significance of the narrative material attributed to him. This evidence can be combined with his few known biographical details in the evaluation of his chronology, which remains uncertain. The last two sections, dealing with his chronology and with the presentation of Alexander in his work, end with a question mark and invite the reader’s own reflections.

The Alexander most visible to us today is one who was created and recreated in the Roman period. While Alexander’s presence in literature is strong enough that we can reasonably describe the trajectory of intellectual interest in Alexander during the Roman period, more difficult to pin down is the degree to which powerful Romans engaged in conscious imitatio or aemulatio Alexandri, which generally involves squaring literary hints with material evidence that does not always speak to us as directly as we would like it to. Without dismissing the world of ways in which various aspects of Alexander-myth may have been subtly exploited by powerful Romans, this paper charts a path between overly credulous and overly sceptical conclusions concerning individual Romans by taking an overview approach of imperial interest and tightening our definitions of ‘imitation’ or ‘emulation’ in the context of Romans and Alexander. I conclude that both imitatio and aemulatio look quite different at Rome than they do in the provincial east.

The chapter considers Egyptian personal names recorded in cuneiform Babylonian texts. In first-millennium BCE Babylonia people bearing Egyptian names appear in the Murašû archive and temple ration lists as well as in other (minor) sources, in various capacities. People with Egyptian names were predominantly ethnic Egyptians or at least of Egyptian descent, while on rare occasions non-Egyptians took on an Egyptian name or name element. Identifying Egyptian names in cuneiform texts can be tricky – one reason being that the cuneiform script records vowels while Egyptian scripts generally do not, making name identification more dependent on consonants. Another is that Assyriological and Egyptological transcription methods differ substantially, which makes the process of finding a name parallel in Egyptological literature more difficult for the non-Egyptologist. This chapter gives an overview of common Egyptian names, naming patterns and name elements of the period, and instructions on how to identify Egyptian names in Babylonian texts and how to link these names to Egyptological name collections.

This chapter reviews the fragmentary evidence for the five first historians and histories of Alexander: Callisthenes of Olynthus, Chares of Mytilene, Nearchus of Crete, Onesicritus of Astypalea and the royal diaries of the king, perhaps compiled by Eumenes of Cardia. These Greek authors took part of the Asiatic expedition and enjoyed a unique vantage point from which to report on the central events of the campaign. Nevertheless, they often resort to literary convention or even invention along the lines of other great Greek literature, especially Homer and Herodotus. Moreover, they all purport to have had some kind of personal access to the king, and the evidence suggests that they sought to magnify that link in various ways during Alexander’s lifetime and after his death. The chapter is structured around a biographical sketch of each author or, in the case of the Royal Journal, text, and a guide to the content, form and function of each history is supplied.