Despite the numerous extant sources and the use of comparative analysis there are still complexities in reconstructing key aspects and events surrounding Alexander: whilst the latter is somewhat easier to decipher, it is not without its difficulties. Throughout this paper it will be argued that a coherent reconstruction of the events of Alexander’s reign is achievable, however, an accurate depiction of Alexander’s motivations and personality is problematic. Before an analysis of Alexander is conducted an exploration of the sources and their contextual biases will be undertaken: illustrating why differing impressions and events are recorded within the extant sources.
The majority of this analysis will be on Arrian’s ‘Anabasis’, as scholars deem it the authoritative text regarding the life of Alexander.[1] Arrian earns this title due to his reliance on Ptolemy and Aristobulus, two contemporaries of Alexander. Furthermore, Hammond argues Ptolemy possessed Alexander’s journal after his death. With Arrian’s reliance on Ptolemy there is the potential he worked off a second-hand account of Alexander’s own writings. [2] However, despite the credibility of Arrian’s sources, there are potential manipulations and confusions running throughout his work that have distorted the true nature of Alexander.[3]Scholars have shown Ptolemy’s attempts to distort and suppress the actions of his Macedonian peers within his work, (this is based off omissions in Arrian.) through this he has also distorted the actions of Alexander, as shall be shown in Arrian’s account of Thebes.[4] Regarding the attack of Thebes, Arrian (and presumably Ptolemy) place the destruction on Perdiccas’s own actions; whilst Diodorus records Perdiccas was working off the orders of Alexander.[5] Although this seems trivial it is an example of how minute distortions inhibit a historian’s ability to reconstruct an accurate picture of Alexander. If Arrian’s recording is correct Alexander is perhaps not as reckless as in the pages of Diodorus., It is only through this comparative analysis a middle ground can be obtained, and a reliable image of Alexanders personality constructed. Aristobulus, similarly, was equally as fallible, being deemed a “Flatterer of Alexander” by modern scholars, further exacerbating the reliability issues of Arrian’s text.[6] With this then one has to read Arrian with the preconception it will shed a favorable light on Alexander. What has been shown is the complexity involved whilst analysing Alexander, as even the most credible of his sources are rife with omissions and distortions.
What must occur then is comparison between the extant sources, this, however, is still not a comprehensive means of constructing the reign of Alexander. Both Curtius and Diodorus have comparable issues to Arrian’s ‘Anabasis’. The latter typically uses round, and inflated numbers when recounting the battles of Alexander. Additionally, Diodorus disregards military tactics for the fanatical, as shall be noted in the battle of Granicus,[7] this leads to incoherent recollections of battles and a lack of accuracy regarding Alexander’s military might. Curtius, in comparison, has numerous inconsistencies due to his focus on morality and comparison with Caesar, opposed to an accurate retelling of Alexander’s reign.[8] With these fallacies in mind, an attempt to assess a historian’s ability to reconstruct Alexander’s motivations, personality and key events will be undertaken.
Regarding the latter, it is here the most certainty can be found. Key events in Alexanders reign are typically well documented. Whilst these accounts are not succinct, through comparison a linear and coherent tale can be formulated. In certain instances, such as the Battle of Granicus, minute details appear in multiple sources, enlarging what a historian can deem as ‘fact’. Within both Arrian and Diodorus Alexander is noted to have sustained a wound to the head. (A1.15.7. D17.20.6) Furthermore, both sources recount the position Alexander held on the right flank, as well as his military valor. (A1.14.1 D17.19.6) Through this then a coherent reconstruction of the battle can be understood.
The problem, however, is that the sources diverge on many other factors. Within Arrian, it is noted Parmenion advises Alexander to wait until dawn to attack, preventing a disorganized Macedonian force encountering an organized Persian cavalry unit on the opposite side of the Granicus. (A1.13.3-5) Diodorus however makes no mention of this, instead proclaiming the Macedonians deployed and in good order before a Persian attack was undertaken, at dawn, despite no warning from Parmenion. (D17.19.21) Furthermore, Arrian notes Alexander’s disrespectful remark of the Granicus; calling it a “petty stream”. (A1.13.6) The omission of this in Diodorus causes complexities in establishing the true nature of Alexander: the assessment could be made Diodorus excluded this due to his preference of a fanatical battle as Hammond asserts[9]. Additionally, Arrian as the authoritative source perhaps had access to these interactions with Parmenion and the Granicus that Diodorus simply did not. The issue is that this is counterfactual and could easily be argued in a number of divergent ways. It is instead better to assert: what can be compared, and therefore deemed factual should be retained, whilst those events mentioned in one source should be treated with caution, leaving the assessment of its validity in the hands of the scholar reading the sources. Nevertheless, Arrian’s admission of Alexander’s recklessness and disrespectful nature is counterintuitive to his supposed favorable agenda as reported above. Perhaps, in this instance, this divergent narrative should be viewed as factual. This, however, is a subjective assessment, something that will ultimately occur when one attempts to reconstruct the personality and motivations of Alexander. Whereas because both sources recount a similar battle we can conclude with some certainty the manner in which the battle was fought, as well as the role played by Alexander.
Similarly, regarding Alexander’s travel through the desert to consult with Ammon a linear reconstruction can occur. All three sources recount the lack of water, the storm, and the supposed divinity behind Alexander’s rescue from dehydration. (A3.3.3. D17.49.3-4. C4.7.4-16.) The sources, however, diverge on what animal (and number of animals) led Alexander and his expedition to Ammon. (A3.3.5 D17.50.1 C7.4.17) This is inconsequential, it is noted only to show even when the sources converge differences are still evident. What this tells us is that Alexander did, most likely, travel to Ammon, the journey was difficult and the prospect of dehydration imminent. Furthermore, Curtius and Diodorus both note Alexander’s desire to possess the world, as well as his concern for his father’s assassins. (D17.51.2-4 C4.7.26-27) Through this comparison an idea of Alexander’s self-perception can be obtained, undoubtedly holding himself in high regard. However, his actions after the encounter with Ammon deviate, once again causing complexities in reconstructing his personality. Curtius recounts “Alexander not only allowed himself to be called the son of Jupiter, but even ordered it.” (C4.7.30) Comparatively, Diodorus remarks Alexander honored the god with riches and returned to Egypt. (D17.51.4) This discrepancy illustrates the impossibility Historians encounter when reconstructing Alexander’s personality. However, when Curtius’s claim is compared with Arrian’s account of Alexander’s implementation of prostration a correlation occurs, one that shows the vanity of Alexander; Arrian himself goes as far to write critically of Alexander proclaiming him “arrogant”. (A4.12.6) Analysing this, as was previously done, considering Arrian’s preferred celebratory tone it can be said, with some certainty, Alexander was, potentially, arrogant, and perhaps disrespectful on occasion. This is further illustrated by his actions after Granicus, again Arrian recounts: “He showed much concern about the wounded, visiting each… encouraging each to recount and even boast of his exploits” (emphasis added) (A1.16.6-7.) This assessment is again subjective, indeed there are many instances when Alexander reigned with dignity and consideration for his enemies. He buried Darius III in the royal tombs, something a wholly arrogant and disrespectful ruler would not have done.[10] (A3.2.1) Alexander’s haphazard actions cause difficulty in pinning his personality down, however, this complexity is a trait of and human being, perhaps this complexity is a testament to the sources ability to capture the fluctuating nature of a young and successful Macedonian ruler, who let his military exploits bolster his ego.
To speak briefly on motivations; there are numerous reasons why Alexander invaded the Persian Empire. The first is for Greek respect: after Granicus Alexander sent to Athens all that Xerxes had taken during his invasion of Greece. (A3.16.8) A king set on increasing his own riches and territory surely would have kept the spoils of war for the Macedonians. However, the domestic stability obtained by sending these gifts back might illustrate Alexander’s sensibilities as a politician, not a desire to obtain recognition from Greece. A second motivation, is potentially, revenge for Persian attacks in the Greek peninsula. His refusal to stop the burning of a Persian temple is the best illustration of this, as Arrian recounts for the atrocities against the Greeks: “for these, he said, he took vengeance.” (A3.18.12) once again, due to an inability to comparatively analyse this event a historian can merely speculate as to Alexander’s motivations. Each source had its own agenda and would manipulate facts and events to serve their individual purposes. It is through comparison, whilst retaining an understanding of their agendas, that one can potentially reconstruct an accurate depiction of Alexander.
To conclude; events of Alexanders reign can be reconstructed into coherent linear stories. However, details will diverge within each source, causing an educated and subjective comparison to be necessary, through this one can attempt to add details to the minimalistic narrative available. With regards to personality and motivations, because each source is inconsistent and incoherent regarding these factors, only subjective assessments can be made. Leading to the conclusion, events of Alexander’s reign can be sketched out in a minimalistic fashion, with the addition of minute details that correlate within two or more sources. Whilst Alexander, the man, is still unobtainable with regards to academic certainty.
Bibliography
- Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander. Transl. Peter A. Brunt (2 vols., Cambridge/London, 1976-1983)
- Bosworth, A.B. (1976) ‘Errors in Arrian’, The Classical Quarterly, 26(1), pp. 117-139.
- Bosworth, A.B. (1980) Commentary of Arrian’s History of Alexander, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Bosworth, A.B. (1988) From Arrian to Alexander Studies in Historical Interpretation, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library. Transl. Charles, H. Oldfather (12 Vols. Cambridge/London 1935)
- Errington, R.M. (1969) ‘Bias in Ptolemy’s History of Alexander’, The Classical Quarterly, 19(2), pp. 233-242.
- Hammond, N.G.L (1983) Three Historians of Alexander the Great. The so-called Vulgate Authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander. Transl. John Yardley (Harmonds worth, 2001)
[1] A.B. Bosworth, ‘Errors in Arrian’, The classical Quarterly, 26(1), pp.117-139. P.117. R.M. Errington, (1969) ‘Bias in Ptolemy’s History of Alexander’, The Classical Quarterly, 19(2), pp. 233-242. P.233.
[2] N.G.L Hammond, (1983) Three Historians of Alexander the Great. The so-called Vulgate Authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.37.
[3] A.B. Bosworth, (1988) From Arrian to Alexander Studies in Historical Interpretation, Oxford: Clarendon Press. P.16.
[4] Bosworth, A.B. (1980) Commentary of Arrian’s History of Alexander, Oxford: Clarendon Press
[5] Errington, Bias, pp.236-238.
[6] Errington, Bias, p.239.
[7] Hammond, Three Historians, p.16, 25.
[8] Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander, p.153.
[9] Hammond, Three Historians, p.37.
[10] Bosworth, Commentary, p.734.
write