Should the ancient Macedonians be considered Greek? This question has been asked for thousands of years. The ancients debated the issue. Modern scholars grapple with it today. It has become central to a political dispute over the national identities of Greece and modern Macedonia.
Now the developers of the game Civilization VI, Firaxis, are wading into this debate: in a recent downloadable content (DLC) pack for the game, they introduced Alexander the Great as leader of the Macedonians — rather than the Greeks, whom he had led in previous iterations of the game.
Firaxis’ choice to make Alexander Macedonian, rather than Greek, has surprised some fans, but it fits into the company’s uneven track record of historical representation and its tendency to wander into complex and fraught cultural debates.
The premise of the Civilization historical-strategy game series is the entire scope of history from the ancient world to the space age. Players must guide their civilization, represented by a famous historical leader, from a humble settlement only just mastering basic agriculture to an advanced society that dominates the world with its military, scientific, and cultural achievements.
Part of the fun of Civilization is its historically-flavored ahistoricity. Aztec tanks of Montezuma can roll over Spanish Conquistadors; the Romans led by Trajan can invent the computer and the nuclear bomb; America might become the eminent cultural power of the ancient world by building Stonehenge. The entertainment value of these scenarios remind us that Civilization is not a factual account.
Nevertheless, the game grounds its ahistorical rewritings in some historical realism: the in-game Civilopedia contains pages of historical accounts, and each civilization’s unique abilities and units are based on historical details. More importantly, the game attempts to model the progression of civilizations in a historically plausible way; realistic details like access to resources, military power, technological prowess, and government policies determine the success and failure of the player’s empire.
The game has been criticized for offering an imperfect model of history. It emphasizes an “optimistic, progress-based view” of advancement based upon Western historical development. Players progress through Western designations of significant eras — Classical, Medieval, Renaissance, Industrial, etc. — leading toward a Western vision of modernity. That model of history, combined with a disproportionate number of Western factions, has led to charges of Eurocentrism. Even the use of the word “civilization” presents an uncomfortable divide between “advanced” societies and the “uncivilized” barbarians that players fight.
Many of these concerns regarding Civilization have been pointed out and discussed before. The issue I’d like to point to is cultural homogenization. The Civilization series has a history of lumping together diverse cultures under the homogenous, essentializing category of “civilization.”
In Civilization V, the many cultures of the Pacific islands are amalgamated into one homogenous entity: the Polynesian civilization, led by Kamehameha I. The game’s producers apparently saw no problems with designating a Hawaiian king to lead a civilization whose unique units are the Maori warriors of New Zealand and whose unique building is an Easter Island stone head. Similarly, Civilization IV groups all of the indigenous tribes of North America together as the generic “Native Americans.”
The Greeks have also been subject to such homogenization. In Civilization V, the Greek civilization is led by Alexander. This suggests that the faction represents the Macedonian empire at the height of Alexander’s conquests. Confusingly, however, his capital is Athens, and he founds Sparta as his second city, followed by Corinth. The Greek ability “Hellenic League,” which grants bonus city-state influence, could refer to the alliance of Greeks during the Persian Wars or any of the various city-state leagues that arose throughout Greek history: apparently, they are all interchangeable.
Alexander’s unique unit, fittingly, is the companion cavalry, or hetairoi, the aristocratic horsemen who were devastatingly effective during the conquests. But he can also use the hoplite, which are more characteristic of the Greek city-states than of Macedon. Nuance disappears as the Spartans, Athenians, and Macedonians are enveloped into a single “Greek civilization.”
In Civilization VI, the Greeks now have a choice of leaders: Pericles of Athens, who enhances culture by influencing city-states, or Gorgo of Sparta, who earns culture in combat. Their abilities align, for the most part, with the “flavor” of their respective poleis. Cultural enhancements by controlling city-states mirror Athens’ use of Delian League funds to support cultural projects like the Parthenon. Gorgo’s ability parallels the heroic deaths of the 300 at Thermopylae, which galvanized the Greeks to fight more fiercely against the Persians, as well as the immortalization of that battle by historians like Herodotus (and modern films like 300).
Players can still access the “baseline” traits of Greece: the hoplite, the acropolis improvement, and the “Plato’s Republic” ability, which grants an extra government policy. While the game acknowledges that the Greeks shared a common Hellenic culture, it uses the different playing styles of Athens and Sparta to indicate the historical differences in government, culture, and worldview between the two.
Firaxis’ representation of Greece remains problematic in several ways. While Gorgo is a remarkable and memorable figure in Herodotus’ and Plutarch’s accounts of Spartan history, she is hardly representative of Spartan leadership, and Firaxis’ choice may perpetuate an overestimation of the power women had in Spartan society. The depiction of Periclean Athens also omits the contentious, imperial relationship between Athens and its “allies,” not to mention Athens’ naval hegemony. It remains unclear why Plato’s Republic, a text by an Athenian, should represent all Greece. But at the very least, players will not be misled into believing that Greek culture was a monolithic entity.
With the introduction of the Macedonians, Firaxis appears to be continuing the trend of de-homogenization with the introduction of a leader from a different geographical region. But Alexander does not lead Greece, nor does he have access to the Greek abilities and units. Instead, he leads Macedon, a distinct civilization with a completely different set of characteristics. Firaxis is essentially suggesting that Alexander and the Macedonians are not Greeks.
By making this sort of historical judgement, Firaxis has entered into a debate on the identity of the Macedonians stretching back thousands of years. The ancients could never agree whether the Macedonians were Greek. Strabo calls Macedonia part of Greece, and Hesiod, in his Catalogue of Women, makes the hero Macedon (the eponymous founder of the state) into a first cousin of the children of founders of the Hellenic tribes.
Herodotus relates how Alexander I, a Macedonian king of the 5th century BCE, wanted to compete in the Olympics, but his opponents claimed he was not a Greek and therefore ineligible. However, he called upon the claim of his family, the Argead royal house, to be descendants of the Greek hero Herakles, and was able to “prove” his “Greekness” (Histories 5.22). It seems, though, that most non-royal Macedonians were considered non-Greek and were not allowed to participate in the Olympics; around the year 400, King Archelaus had to institute a different version of the Olympics at Dion specifically for Macedonians.
The Greeks often called the Macedonians foreigners or barbarians (Pomeroy 2012, p. 411). In the 4th century, the Athenian orator Demosthenes denounced the rising power of Macedon as a “barbarian” threat, especially in his Third Olynthiac and Third Philippic speeches. Even in antiquity, the “Greekness” of the Macedonians was a matter of contention.
Scholars continue to debate Macedonian ethnicity and have yet to reach a consensus. Herodotus famously defines “Greekness” (to hellenikon) on the basis of shared blood, language, religion, and customs (8.144). On each of these counts, there are arguments for and against Macedonian Greekness. The Hellenizing tendencies of the Macedonian ruling class are a complicating factor; in addition to claiming Greek blood, they also adopted elements of Greek culture. Alexander the Great was tutored by Aristotle, a Greek, and brought a copy of Homer’s Iliad on his campaigns.
The question of how Greek the ancient Macedonians were is more than just an academic debate; it reaches into contemporary politics as well. The modern nations of Greece and Macedonia are embroiled in a political clash hinging on the ethnic identity of Alexander and the ancient Macedonians.
Both nations claim the name “Macedonia.” Greece reserves that name for its northern province, while its neighbor to the north calls itself the Republic of Macedonia. Greece says that the ancient Macedonians were thoroughly Greek and that modern-day Greeks have authority over the legacy of Alexander and Macedon, which has been appropriated by modern Macedonia. Macedonian nationalists counter that the ancient Macedonians were a distinct ethnic group that mixed with the Slavic ancestors of modern Macedonians, who therefore have rights to the legacy of Alexander and Macedon.
Greece protests the use of the name “Macedonia,” and as a compromise, the modern republic was accepted into the UN under the provisional name “Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia” (FYROM). Greece still blocks efforts by Macedonia to join NATO and the EU. In the ongoing dispute, Macedonia has tried to score points by laying claim to Alexander and the culture of ancient Macedon. In the capital of Skopje, the airport has been named after Alexander, and a statue of him was recently erected, to the anger of Greece.
The debate over Macedonian “Greekness” is complex; it stretches back to ancient arguments and continues in the form of discussions among scholars. It has the potential to inflame intense passions among modern-day Greeks and Macedonians, with real consequences in the political sphere. Therefore, the portrayal of Alexander and the Macedonians in Civilization VI as part of a non-Greek civilization becomes particularly stunning when we realize that Firaxis is stepping into such a complicated debate.
But what did Firaxis actually intend with this decision? It seems unlikely that a game developer would court controversy by trying to make a political point. One concern may have been to improve historical representation by acknowledging the differences between the Macedonians and the other Greeks. Separating Macedon from Greece as an entirely different civilization is an extreme version of that position, but it prevents Macedon from being subsumed into a monolithic Greek culture.
But Macedon’s abilities tell us little of Macedonian culture, instead emphasizing Alexander’s conquests. Mirroring the length of his ten-year campaign, “To the World’s End” reduces war weariness. “Hellenistic Fusion,” which grants science and culture when cities are captured, parallels how Alexander quickly integrated conquered regions into his empire before continuing his conquests. The companion cavalry are linked to Alexander alone: other potential leaders of Macedon would not be able to use them. The Basilikoi Paides building stands out as a Macedonian institution, but for the most part, Macedon is “Alexander’s civilization.” It is clear that the Macedonian civilization was designed around the personality and history of a single man, not a complex culture.
Civilization fans tend to fall into two categories: strategy gamers and fans interested in history. To strategy gamers, Macedon would simply become a new in-game faction with interesting abilities. They may take note of the Macedonian “Greekness” debate, but that would lead to no functional difference in terms of playing the game.
Players like me — who are interested in history — will, naturally, appreciate historical realism. During gameplay, we enjoy examining historical details, either to note and point out inaccuracies, or to acknowledge real-world parallels. These players have enough understanding of history to have their own beliefs or opinions that cannot be altered by the game. Indeed, some fans are complaining that the game now has too many Greek factions; that is, they still consider Alexander and the Macedonians Greek, regardless of what the game suggests to be the case.
Firaxis’ choices lend support to this view. The developers refer to Macedon as a “Greek kingdom” and constantly mention Alexander’s role in Greek history. On his leader screen, he speaks standard Attic Greek, not a Macedonian dialect.
That the Persians are also included in the DLC, alongside a scenario allowing players to conquer their empire as Alexander did, makes me think that “creating a cool matchup between Alexander and the Persians” was the goal, rather than making historical judgments about the Greekness of the Macedonians. As Firaxis was adding Alexander and the Macedonian faction, it seems that they were not asking themselves, “How can we be more historically accurate?” Instead, the question they were asking was probably, “What cool historical leader can we add to Civilization to create interesting gameplay mechanics and an entertaining experience for the player?”
Ultimately, that is the alluring “danger” of using Civilization to understand history: an enjoyable gameplay experience takes priority over historical fidelity. It might “feel” like history, but the exploration of historical nuance is simply not its goal. Abstract game mechanics cannot tell us much about history: additional background knowledge, even beyond what is provided in the Civilopedia, is necessary to align gameplay with historical details.
In the end, whatever statement Firaxis makes about Alexander will have limited impact on broader public perceptions. It will not help the public come to an understanding of how Greek Alexander is, or resolve the modern political controversy, for the two sides are too entrenched, and their passions run too deep, for a computer game to have an effect.
History is only the “flavor” that draws the player into Civilization. The game contains just enough realistic details to create the exciting sense of historical progression. We are attracted by the fascinating ability to re-write history, to imagine the absurdity of impossible historical encounters, and re-enact the achievements of famous characters from history.
Which brings me back to Alexander. Laying claim to his legacy lends cultural and historical authority towards any endeavor. For a history-themed computer game, what better way to add entertainment value than to introduce a renowned conqueror and interesting personality who had a massive effect on history? Which other historical character would be more fun to play as?
The modern Greeks and Macedonians continue to debate who has a right to Alexander as a symbol. Both have laid claim to the legacy of Alexander and the Macedonians in an effort to bolster their political positions and to affirm their national identities. Alexander’s impact over thousands of years after his death cannot be overstated: everyone still wants a piece of him.
Brian Le is a writer and independent scholar who received his BA in Classics from Santa Clara University in 2016. He writes about Classical languages and literature, as well as the essential role played by stories, narratives, and media in both the ancient and modern worlds.
Thanks to William Greenwalt, Professor of Classics at Santa Clara University, for sharing his thoughts on the nature of Macedonian identity and culture.
