No other woman in Ancient Greek history inspired as much fascination, fear, and controversy as Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great. She is described as passionate, intelligent, ruthless, and deeply religious. Enemies portrayed her as dangerous and manipulative, while supporters viewed her as a fiercely loyal mother and protector of Alexander’s destiny.

Behind the legends and accusations, however, stood a woman who exercised enormous political influence during one of history’s most transformative periods. Olympias shaped Alexander from childhood, influenced the succession crisis after Philip II’s death, and later played a decisive role in the violent struggles that followed Alexander’s empire.

Her presence loomed over Macedon for decades. Even after Alexander conquered much of the known world, Olympias continued to influence the royal court and the fate of the Argead dynasty.

Alexander the Great’s mother, Olympias, and her Molossian origins

Olympias came from Epirus, a Greek kingdom west of Macedonia. She belonged to the royal Molossian dynasty, which claimed descent from Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles. This heroic ancestry carried enormous symbolic value in the Greek world. Her original name may have been Polyxena or Myrtale. The biographer Plutarch suggests she later adopted the name Olympias after Philip achieved victory at the Olympic Games.

From an early age, Olympias displayed strong religious devotion.They initiated her with mystery cults and ecstatic rituals connected with Dionysus and the mysteries of the Cabeiri to whom she became a high-ranking priestess. These cults emphasized sacred initiation, hidden knowledge, and intense spiritual experiences. Her religious identity later became central to the legends surrounding Alexander’s birth.

The snakes and the divine birth of Alexander

Ancient authors repeatedly connect Olympias with snakes and mystery rituals. Plutarch wrote that Philip once saw a serpent lying beside Olympias while she slept. Legends claimed that she begot Alexander with Zeus through intercourse with snakes. According to later traditions, this event contributed to the belief that Zeus himself fathered Alexander.

These stories shaped Alexander’s image ever since childhood. Olympias appears to have encouraged the belief that her son possessed divine ancestry. Such ideas naturally fit within the heroic traditions of the Greek world in which exceptional rulers often claimed descent from gods. The symbolism of Zeus held enormous political importance. Alexander did not simply present himself as a king but increasingly viewed himself as a chosen figure with a cosmic mission. Of course, Olympias likely played a major role in nurturing this mindset.

Ancient religion did not sharply separate politics from divine legitimacy. A ruler with sacred ancestry possessed more potent authority and prestige. Olympias therefore strengthened Alexander’s position both psychologically and politically. The stories involving snakes also reflected the mystical atmosphere surrounding cults. Serpents symbolized rebirth, divine wisdom, chthonic forces, and sacred power in many Greek traditions. As a priestess connected with such cults, Olympias cultivated an aura of mystery that impressed supporters and frightened enemies.

Olympias’ relationship with Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great

The marriage between Olympias and Philip II began as a political alliance, yet tensions soon emerged between them. Philip married several women during his reign, partly for diplomatic reasons. However, these marriages threatened Alexander’s position as heir. Olympias fiercely defended her son’s claim to the throne and distrusted rival factions within the Macedonian court.

Conflict intensified after Philip married Cleopatra Eurydice, a Macedonian noblewoman. Her marriage resulted in the possibility of a fully Macedonian heir, which endangered Alexander’s succession. Plutarch describes a famous banquet confrontation during which insulted Alexander by implying doubts concerning his legitimacy. The quarrel severely damaged relations within the royal family.

Olympias soon withdrew from Macedon temporarily and returned to Epirus. Alexander also left for a period before reconciliation occurred. These events led to an atmosphere of suspicion and instability that surrounded Philip’s final years.

The assassination of Philip and Alexander’s accession

Philip II passed away in 336 BC after assassination during a public celebration at Aegae. His bodyguard, Pausanias, killed him before guards immediately cut the assassin down. The assassination remains one of antiquity’s great mysteries. Plutarch and the historian Arrian often suspected Olympias of involvement. Some even claimed she honored Pausanias afterward or placed a crown upon his corpse. Other traditions accuse Alexander indirectly as well.

No definitive evidence proves these accusations. However, Olympias clearly benefited politically from Philip’s death because Alexander immediately became king. She acted quickly afterward to eliminate threats against her son’s rule. The geographer Pausanias accuses her of orchestrating brutal acts against Cleopatra Eurydice and her child. Whether entirely accurate or exaggerated by hostile writers, these accounts reveal Olympias’ fierce determination to secure Alexander’s position. In the brutal world of Macedonian succession politics, hesitation often meant destruction.

Even after Alexander launched his campaigns into Asia, Olympias continued influencing Macedonian affairs from afar. Alexander maintained regular correspondence with her and respected her opinions deeply. Both Arrian and Plutarch suggested that Olympias frequently warned him about political rivals and court intrigues. At times, her intense personality resulted in tension with Antipater, whom Alexander left in charge of Macedon during the eastern campaigns. Their rivalry became one of the defining political conflicts of the period.

Olympias viewed herself not merely as the king’s mother but also as guardian of the Argead dynasty and protector of Alexander’s divine mission. Meanwhile, Alexander’s own behavior increasingly reflected the heroic and semi-divine identity cultivated since childhood. His visit to the oracle of Zeus-Ammon in Siwa of Egypt supported these beliefs further when the Egyptian priest proclaimed him as “child of Ammon.” The foundations of this worldview likely originated partly through Olympias’ influence, as previously mentioned.

The chaos after Alexander’s death

Alexander’s death in 323 BC plunged the empire into chaos. Without a clear successor, powerful generals fought for control over the vast territories he conquered. Olympias returned to political life aggressively during this turbulent period, supporting the rights of Alexander IV, Alexander’s young son by Roxana. Olympias viewed him as the legitimate continuation of the Argead dynasty.

In order to defend her grandson’s claim, she entered the brutal wars of the Successors. During this struggle, Olympias captured and executed Philip III Arrhidaeus and his wife Eurydice. These actions shocked many Macedonians and intensified divisions within the kingdom.

Nevertheless, Olympias believed she acted to preserve Alexander’s bloodline and royal legitimacy. Her enemies, however, saw only cruelty and vengeance.

The fall of Olympias

Cassander, one of the most powerful Successors, eventually marched against Olympias. Many Macedonians abandoned her cause as political exhaustion, and civil war consumed the kingdom. After siege and defeat, Olympias surrendered.

Cassander condemned her to death in 316 BC. Plutarch claims that soldiers initially hesitated to execute her because of her royal status and dominant personality. Eventually, however, relatives of her victims carried out the killing. With Olympias’ death, the final collapse of the Argead dynasty was all the more imminent. Soon afterward, Cassander eliminated Alexander IV and Roxana, as well, and thus ended the bloodline of Philip and Alexander.

Olympias remains one of antiquity’s most complex female figures, having shaped Alexander psychologically ever since childhood and having encouraged his belief in divine destiny. She defended his succession fiercely during critical political crises and later fought relentlessly to preserve the dynasty after his death. Without Olympias, Alexander’s rise may have unfolded quite differently.

At the same time, her actions contributed to the violence and instability that destroyed Macedon after Alexander’s empire fragmented. She therefore stands both as creator and destroyer: a queen, priestess, mother, and political strategist whose influence changed the ancient world forever.

While Uranus was officially discovered as a planet by the astronomer William Herschel in 1781 using a telescope, some ancient Greek astronomers, such as Hipparchus, may have observed Uranus—but only as a fixed star rather than as a planet.

Uranus, the seventh planet from the Sun, is unique in that it is barely visible to the naked eye, appearing as a faint, star-like point in the night sky.

Hipparchus and the catalog of stars

Hipparchus (2nd century BC), among the greatest ancient Greek astronomers, compiled one of the earliest known star catalogs. He meticulously recorded the positions of about 850 stars, significantly advancing observational astronomy. The fact that Uranus was likely observed and recorded by Hipparchus, even if only as a faint star, is a major contribution to the history of astronomy. It is proof of the remarkable precision and thoroughness of ancient astronomers in mapping the night sky.

Because Uranus moves especially slowly across the celestial sphere, its motion was imperceptible to naked-eye observers over short periods. Thus, Hipparchus correctly classified it as a fixed star rather than a planet. From the perspective of ancient Greek astronomy—which was strictly geocentric and based on Earth-centered celestial spheres—this classification was logically consistent. Uranus does not revolve around the Earth in a way that is observable to the naked eye. Therefore, ancient astronomers had no reason to consider it a “wanderer” or planet.

The classical planets of Greek astronomy

Many ancient Greek astronomers were influenced by philosophers such as Aristotle and astronomers like Hipparchus and, later on, Ptolemy. They identified five planets visible to the naked eye: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Along with the Sun and Moon, these made up the seven classical celestial bodies known as “planets” (meaning “wanderers”).

Uranus, being dim and slow-moving, did not appear among these and was therefore excluded from the traditional geocentric cosmology, which placed Earth at the center, surrounded by the concentric spheres of the other celestial bodies.

Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century AD), the eminent Greco-Roman astronomer and mathematician, authored the Almagest, a comprehensive treatise on astronomy that shaped scientific thought for over a millennium. Ptolemy’s planetary system included the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

Although Ptolemy compiled an extensive star catalog and developed sophisticated mathematical models for planetary motions, there is no mention of Uranus as a planet or wanderer. It likely appeared in his star catalog simply as an unremarkable star without recognition of its planetary nature.

Mythology and  astral symbolism

In Greek mythology, Uranus was the primordial sky god, father of the Titans. While the planet got its name from this mythological figure, ancient Greeks did not associate the myth with any observable celestial body beyond the known planets of the time.

The naming of the planet Uranus centuries later reflected a mythological heritage, but ancient astronomy itself made no link between the myth and an actual astral element. The likelihood that Hipparchus observed Uranus as a star highlights the exceptional skill of ancient astronomers in mapping the heavens.

Yet their classification of Uranus as a fixed star rather than a planet was entirely consistent with the contemporary geocentric framework that dominated ancient Greek astronomy. Since Uranus does not visibly orbit Earth, it did not meet the criteria of a “wandering star” or planet from their perspective.

Ptolemy’s Almagest and the classical planetary model included only the five planets visible to the naked eye, omitting Uranus altogether. Ancient Greek astronomers made impressively advanced discoveries for their time. However, the observational technology and conceptual frameworks available to them ultimately limited their progress.

The eventual recognition of Uranus as a planet in the 18th century dramatically expanded the known solar system and challenged the classical view inherited from antiquity.