An extra τῷ

[QuintusTheCuck]

Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῷ ἐπὶ τοὺς Πέρσας ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος νίκην ἒσχεν, ἐκέλευσε τοὺς στρατιώτας αὐτὸν ὡς θεὸν προσαγορεύειν.

I translated as:
Therefore when in battle against the Persians, Alexander had victory, ordered the soldiers to address him as God.

I wanted to know why there is a second τῷ after πολέμῳ

Thanks, much appreciated.

[jeidsath]

This is the attributive position. To steal the example from Smyth:

ὁ σοφὸς ἀνήρ, ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ σοφός, or ἀνὴρ ὁ σοφός are all "the wise man"

Distinguish from the predicate position:

σοφὸς ὁ ἀνήρ or ὁ ἀνὴρ σοφός "the man is wise"

[Barry Hofstetter]

To expand on Joel's answer, this is one of two ways of doing the attributive. The other is to "sandwich" the modifier between the article and the noun, e.g., ὁ σοφὸς ἀνήρ.

With regard to your translation, I think you are getting it, but you could smooth it out a bit in English. Since Alexander is the expressed subject in the subordinate clause and also the subject of the main clause, English wants a pronoun, "he ordered." And since the context is clearly not Judaeo-Christian, I would render "a god" rather than "God."

[jeidsath]

And if you're trying to translate literally, "νίκην ἒσχεν" would be better as "got victory" than "had victory" since the tense is aorist. Of course, here it just means he won.

[mwh]

ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ is not “in battle” but “in the war.”

And to wrap up your question:

ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῷ ἐπὶ τοὺς Πέρσας is “in the war against the Persians.” The "extra" τῷ ties ἐπὶ τοὺς Πέρσας to τῷ πολέμῳ. Without that τῷ the meaning would be “in the war, Alex won a victory against the Persians,” but it’s specifically “in the war against the Persians.” See the difference?
(In grammar-speak ἐπὶ τοὺς Πέρσας is “attributive” not “predicative,” since it’s not a free-floating phrase with the verb but modifies τῷ πολέμῳ exclusively—as the repeated τῷ indicates.)

ἐν τῷ ἐπὶ τοὺς Πέρσας πολέμῳ (“sandwiching” ἐπὶ τοὺς Πέρσας between ἐν τῷ and πολέμῳ) would mean the same thing, lit. “in the against-the-Persians war.”

Translation: “So when Alex was victorious in the war against the Persians he told his men to address him as a god.”

[The sentence appears to be made-up Greek. In real Greek ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος would not come within the ἐπεὶ clause, since he is also the subject of the main clause.]

[Paul Derouda]

[The sentence appears to be made-up Greek. In real Greek ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος would not come within the ἐπεὶ clause, since he is also the subject of the main clause.]

So are you saying that in real Greek, it would go: Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῷ ἐπὶ τοὺς Πέρσας νίκην ἒσχεν, ἐκέλευσε ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος τοὺς στρατιώτας αὐτὸν ὡς θεὸν προσαγορεύειν.

[mwh]

When the main clause and a subordinate clause share the same subject it’s normally in the main clause, not the subordinate clause. Isn’t that so?(I’d be genuinely grateful for counter-examples.) In this particular sentence ὁ ουν Αλεξανδρος would most likely come at the beginning. The επει clause could of course be a participial phrase instead (with e.g. νικήσας) whether before or after ὁ Αλεξ.