An Introduction to the Town Planning of Alexander the Great

By David Campbell

Alexander is famous for his prolithic foundation of cities, each named for himself. However, far from being the random act of narcissism that is often portrayed in modern times this short volume argues that Alexander the Great had very specific aims and objectives coupled with definite ideas on urban planning. This volume identifies Alexander's towns and analyses what remans of their urban fabric to ascertain if there was method to his building program.

• Language: English
• Publisher: David Campbell
• Release date: Jun 26, 2024
• ISBN: 9798224804771

Book preview

Introduction

Students of Ancient history and the classics know well of the city plantings of Alexander the Great – of the metropolis of Egypt, the far distant outposts of Hellenism in an Asian landscape and the memorial to his beloved Horse. Alexander’s towns have become part of the fabric of Hellenistic legacy reaching legendary status. Yet they are no urban myth, but rather little studied real locations that are only now, due to the wars at the turn of the millennium, becoming known to the west.

The object of this short book is to ascertain if there was a methodology that was employed by Alexander in his town foundations.

This book examines these towns and the planning process (or lack thereof) involved in their establishment and development. The following chapters will rely on both archaeology and ancient written sources to first identify the cities that Alexander founded and then examine the planning and development of each town individually, to determine the principles at work, starting first with the large and well known Alexandria’s fringing the Mediterranean, proceeding to the central Asian Oasis towns and finalizing with the mysterious and shrouded foundations of the subcontinent.

In undertaking this study emphasis is placed on the primary evidence, a number of authors in recent years have made significant contributions to the study of these settlements, providing significant analysis and assessment. These authors have tended to be referenced only in specific instances to facilitate trends emerging from the primary evidence only.

The Study begins with an assessment of the classical sources that provide our list of Alexander

foundations. This body of work is assessed in terms of its accuracy and a consensus list is then drawn, with a short explanation why non-included cities were dropped. The cities in this consensus list form the second part of this book and each of the town will be analysed looking first at the history of the town and secondly at the way this history has expressed itself in the built form.

Part three of the book will look at trends or influences in the urban layout of Alexanders foundations and try to analyse the cities and determine if there is a link back to the theoretic paradigms set up in the first section. This section will act as a conclusion then to draw the pieces to gather for as much as can be gleaned.

Hellenistic Cities

It is often the norm to regard the Hellenistic age as being a mere continuance of the Hellenic or classical era. This, for the purpose of this study, is inaccurate. The cities of the Hellenistic age differed from those of the classical Hellenic era in several ways, the most important being;

1. Although Hellenistic cities, have generally been considered to be a polis, possessing all the administrative trappings of a polis with an agora, a gymnasium, political bodies including an archives, like the classical cities of Greece, the similarity is external only.  Hellenistic cities physically looked like Classical Greek cities, but were not a self-contained city states as classical cities were, rather they were part of larger imperial arrangements, that were more typical of mid-eastern governments of the ancient world. The majority of Hellenist Cities were not classed as polis but rather Katoikia.

2. The Classic Hellenic city was a Greek city, The Greek culture was the dominant and official culture. The new cities were Macedonian creations, and a cosmopolitan mix of cultures resulting

from Alexanders own cultural tolerance, which was not the norm in the classical polis. They were the product of a Macedonian elite, absorbent of Greek culture and heavily influenced by the surrounding native culture. For instance in Egypt the Ptolemaic rulers1 adopted an Egyptian as well as Greek culture, in Bactria and Sogdana, cities exhibited a mix of Eastern and Greek culture2 and Greco-Indian cities were increasingly Indian.³ ⁴

3. The cultural history of Alexander’s foundations takes three different paths. In the west his cities

were conquered by the Romans up to the time of Julius Caesar. They formed the Greco-Roman

world well known as the backdrop to the New Testament and numerous Hollywood movies.

In the core of the empire the cities exhibit strong influence from Parthian and Sassanid Persian in

influences,5 and in the east they formed part of the espree of the Indo-Greek/Buddhist culture that

was developing in the first centuries of the modern era.

Planning Theory and cultural Background

The generation of Alexander the great saw the most prolific period of Greek city construction ever

undertaken and one of the most prolific city construction era in history. The huge wealth and complex cultural interchanges that resulted from Alexander’s conquests allowed the establishment of numerous cities, by Alexander and his immediate successors, from which they administered their new empires.

Each of them adapted the theories of Plato, Hippodamus and the other Greek planners, in ways that

allowed for the unique environments and culture in which they were planted. Indeed the greatest test showing the genius of the Greek polis designers, must surely be that they could transplant the Greek polis with its peculiarly Hellenic institutions culture and western urban forms, uproot it from the Mediterranean basin and plant it in a location as foreign to its origins, as the valleys of Afghanistan and the desserts of southern and central Asia, and then to have those cities survive and even flourish for two and a half millennium and be major centre’s of several empires and modern nations.

Some debate has been raised over whether leaders of a Macedonian Empire would rely on Greek theories in the layout of new settlements or not. Although Macedonians were not exactly Greek they were still highly absorbent of that culture, despite the apparent animosity between the two people. For the purposes of this paper it is assumed that despite Alexander’s mild distain for Greeks, he admired their culture, used their Architects,⁶ and was well versed in their education through his travels and tutelage by Aristotle.⁷ It is safe therefore, to assume that Alexander’s theoretic baggage was Aristotelian.

This theoretical background would have been heavily tied to the writings and constructions of men like Hippodamos,⁸ ⁹ who laid,¹⁰ out Rhodes,¹¹ Piraeus¹² and Thirrii, as well as men like Hermagenes,¹³ and Mausollus who laid out Halicarnassus,¹⁴ and Hermocrates who founded the town of Selinus.¹⁵

The theoretical design of cities was very important to the Hellenic Greeks and many eminent thinkers wrote on the subject, include Plato and Varro. Even Aristotle considered the planning of towns with great detail.¹⁶ ® Aristotle speculated on the optimum size of a city and approved of the Hippodamus model of the city,¹⁷ ¹⁸but added that each planner had to use his own ingenuity to solve the problems presented by each site.¹⁹ Aristotle advocated for two separate agora for each city, one as a marketplace and the others as a civic center.²⁰

The optimal location was also considered by a number of eminent Greek writers. Both Hippocrates²¹ and Aristotle,²² advocated a slope facing east, Aristotle conceded that where east was not practicable, facing south would suffice.²³ Vitruvius,²⁴ thought the orientation should be such that it took advantage of any prevailing winds to keep the city clean. Hippocrates,²⁵ Socrates²⁶ and Aristotle,²⁷ all advocated locating a city to obtain sun and breeze.

A number of Greek writers considered the optimum size of a city. Hippodamus,²⁸ thought the correct number for a city at 10,000 persons,²⁹ while Plato,30 thought that 5040 shares in the land,³¹ was appropriate.

The minimum size of a polis was also considered. Aristotle for instance,³² wrote that 10 people³² would not make a city.

Aristotle pragmatically summed up the delicate balance between too big and too small by saying "the polis must have a population which is self-sufficient for the purpose of living a