To What Extent and by What Means did Alexander the Great Try to Ensure That Posterity Would Regard Him in Heroic and Uncritical Terms?

Alexander III of Macedon, better known as Alexander the Great, is considered to be one of the most successful military commanders in history. His father, Philip II, had unified most of mainland Greece under a Macedonian hegemony known as the League of Corinth. Following his death, his son Alexander assumed the throne and went on to conquer most of the known world. At the time of his death in 323 BC his empire encompassed Anatolia, Bactria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, and stretched as far as India. Despite his early death his legacy was assured, and his exploits formed the basis of a new golden age of Greek settlement and influence over distant lands known as the Hellenistic period. His name has lasted to become one of antiquities legendary characters, entering into the hero mythology of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. But to what extent did Alexander himself influence this version of history? This essay will show that Alexander went to great lengths to ensure this legendary status, through a propaganda campaign designed to create a cult of personality around him. In order to achieve this we must first understand the character of Alexander the Great, his drives and ambition, in order to determine the extent of his lust for glory. To do this we must also evaluate the validity of the source material.
istorians are divided in their opinion of Alexander, some holding the views that he was on a ‘divinely inspired mission to unite the human race’, whilst others consider him to have been a ‘megalomaniac bent on world domination’. Supporters, like Bosworth, maintain that he was primarily trying to better the world, acting as the champion of civilized nations and extending his hegemony to create a kind of Pax Macedonia. Lonsdale holds the opposing view and emphasizes the negative aspects of his reign, pointing to the destruction of Thebes, Tyre and Gaza as evidence that this was a man who preferred war to diplomacy. This was not a hero, but a tyrant responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the ancient world. Any compassion he showed was out of practicality, rather than a genuine love for his new subjects.
The sources allow for a wide interpretation, and both of these extreme views are somewhat anachronistic in an age when conquest and military heroism were both acceptable and encouraged. Furthermore, these ancient sources should always be viewed with skepticism, as they have a tendency to be written with an agenda in mind. In Europe and much of Southwest Asia he is remembered as a hero, whilst to many Zoroastrians he is remembered for his wanton destruction of their first empire and the city of Persepolis. There are many sources detailing the exploits of Alexander the Great, the best known of which are the accounts of Diodorus of Sicily, Plutarch of Chaeronea, Arrian of Nicodemia and Quintus Curtius Rufus. However, all of these men were writing over three hundred years after the event, and all relied on various secondary sources. Most, if not all, have been influenced by the contemporary writings of Cleitarchus, Ptolemy and Aristobulus.
Cleitarchus’s History of Alexander was completed in 310 BC, and soon became the most popular account of Alexander’s conquests. His main source would have been Alexander’s official historian, Callisthenes of Olynthus; although the memoirs of Sicritus of Astypalaea, Alexander’s fleet commander, and other stories from the veterans who live in Alexandria were probably used to fill the gaps. The most important aspect of Cleitarchus’ work that we are concerned with is the psychological dimension to this study of Alexander. In Cleitarchus’ opinion, ‘the young king was corrupted by his constant good fortune and became an alcoholic, a tyrant, and a murderer.’ Modern scholars accept the facts that Cleitarchus mention, but often provide another interpretation to them. For example, according to Cleitarchus, Alexander started to change after the death of Darius III of Persia, as there was no longer any check on his vices. One could argue that Alexander’s opulence was necessary as he had to behave as a Persian king in order to be accepted by his new subjects. Cleitarchus’ also had a tendency to revel in fantastic tales, often sacrificing historical reliability in the process. As a result it is often referred to as the “vulgate” and, along with Diodorus of Sicily and Quintus Curtius Rufus, forms the basis of the “vulgate tradition”.
Diodorus of Sicily produced a world history, book seven of which concerns Alexander, and was obviously based on Cleitarchus’ History of Alexander. However, he has been criticized by modern scholars for being overly sympathetic to Alexander, motivated by the parallels between the Macedonian Empire and his own Roman Empire. These were two Empires which sought to bring unity to the Mediterranean, consequently Alexander is viewed by Diodorus as having an important place in world history; acting as an example to Rome. Quintus Curtius Rufus is the only major Roman author whose work, The History of Alexander the Great of Macedonia, has survived. This contains many obvious errors, stemming from it source, Cleitarchus. He certainly tried to be critical with reference to Alexander, though as with Diodorus many scholars have been critical of him. They believe he has sacrificed authenticity in order to give a negative impression of Alexander, to act as a comparison with his own tyrannical emperor, Caligula. All three members of the vulgate tradition draw the accounts directly or indirectly from Callisthenes of Olynthus.
Callisthenes of Olynthus was a professional historian who acted as Alexander’s official propagandist. He would go on to criticize the introduction of proskynesis to the court, and lost the favor of Alexander. Although Callisthenes’ book, Deeds of Alexander, is now lost it became the basis for the works of the vulgate tradition. The vulgate accounts suggest that there was a sequel to this book, also lost, which would explain why we have detailed information on the chronology of events as it is apparently based on a Royal diary. By these accounts the book was obviously a work of flattery intended to please the king. To this end it portrayed Alexander in true Homeric tradition, highlighting his manly behavior and the inherent weakness of his Persian enemies. There was a list of towns and sites that were mentioned by Homer a visited by Alexander, the most notable being the site of Troy. Whether he promoted Alexander’s claim that he was the son of Zeus is unknown, he certainly did nothing to dissuade it.
Ptolemy was a friend from Alexander’s youth, and remained one of the king closest confidents and bodyguards throughout his life. His memoirs are referred to in Anabasis and from this one can surmise their nature. Ptolemy obviously uses Deeds of Alexander to recount the chronology of events, and also exaggerates his own role in this history. It is also heavily biased against one of his rivals, Antigonus Monophthalmus, whose successful campaigns in Anatolia are entirely ignored. Ptolemy does not write any psychological assessment of Alexander, ignoring any idea that he had been driven mad with power. He concentrates on the war and portrays his king as a rational expansionist. However, these memoirs are ultimately suspect as Ptolemy was motivated primarily by proving that he was the legitimate heir to Alexander in Egypt.
Aristobulus of Cassandreia was probably one of Alexander’s military engineers or a civilian official who was active during the war in Persia. As with Ptolemy, the most familiar reference to his memoirs can be found in Anabasis. He could probably be best described as one of Alexander’s apologists. When Alexander was a heavy drinker, Aristobulus would simply describe him as sociable. When he was so drunk that he killed his friend Clitus, Aristobulus insists that it was his own fault. He was probably the originator of the idea that Alexander was driven by pothos; an instinctive sense of longing. This could be interpreted as a longing to die; pothos being the name of a flower the Greeks would place as a grave offering. Alexander wanted to be famous and die young, like his hero Achilles. He inspired the works of Arrian of Nicodemedia and Plutarch of Chaeronea.
Arrian of Nicomedia wrote about the life of Alexander the Great in his seven books of Anabasis. Arrian is largely admiring of Alexander, though is not entirely uncritical and condemns some aspects in book four. His work regarded by many modern scholars to be the most important account of Alexander’s reign, as he largely ignored Cleitarchus’ History of Alexander in favor of other sources. He chose to use the eyewitness accounts of Ptolemy and Aristobulus as they had both been on campaigns with Alexander. Arrian is also valued for having come from a military background, and having some insight into the workings of courtly life. It is interesting then that his opinion of Alexander differs from that of Cleitarchus, who claimed the young king had been corrupted by constant success. The quality of Arrian’s writings leads modern scholars to view his work as the personification of the “good tradition”.
Plutarch of Chaeronea was, along with Augustine of Hippo and Aristotle of Stagira, was one of the most influential ancient philosophers. His most important observation of the reign of Alexander is that he brought civilization to the uncivilized. This idea is detailed in one of Plutarch’s writings called The Fortune and Virtue of Alexander, and in Alexander’s Conversation with Diogenes. It echoes Alexander’s own desire to be seen as the philosopher king, who seeks to improve mankind through his dominion. One cannot simply label Plutarch as being part of the “vulgate” or “good” tradition, as he blends elements of both. His Life of Alexander is particularly useful in understand the youth of the king, as it contains many stories taken from a long lost book by on Alexander’s education by his schoolmate Marsyas.
The main failing of the surviving Greek works is that they are either secondary or tertiary sources, written many years after the event. Excluding a handful of Greek inscriptions, the only surviving primary source material relating to Alexander the Great is the Astronomical diary that was kept in the temple of Marduk, the supreme god of the Babylonians. This contains an account of various meteorological and celestial phenomena; as well as political, religious and social events. Relating to Alexander specifically, it lists the prices of various commodities at the time of his invasion as well as the correct date of his death, 11 June 323 BC. The most important piece of information we can gather from the diary concerns the battle of Gaugamela on 1 October 331 BC. The diary claims that the Persian soldiers fled the battle leaving their king, rather than the king fleeing the battle and leaving his soldiers as claimed by Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian. This could be explained as confusion over the outcome of a battle fought on a dusty plain. However, the discrepancy is more likely due to embellishment on the part of Alexander’s supporters.
Zoroastrian sources are often heavily biased against Alexander, the man who killed Iranian priests, leveled Persepolis to the ground and burnt the Avesta, the holy text of Zoroastrianism. The last claim is interesting, as it presumes that the Zoroastrian scripture of the time was written down. Many have suggested that at the time of Alexander there was no written version of the Avesta, it existed purely as an oral tradition. If such a claim were found to be erroneous it would bring into question the validity of these sources as historical accounts. However, the numerous references to a written version of the Avesta in other sources suggest that it did exist. Even if this were not so it does not mean that oral traditions are useless at providing a valid account. For example the Book of Arda Wiraz was produced from oral tradition, having been written long after its subject matter. Most agree that, despite containing anachronisms, they hold some reliable information. Ultimately, the Zoroastrian sources are most useful in reconstructing the Persian side of the story and in comparison with the Greek sources.
Given Alexander’s predominance in the political scene of the time, it should be noted that there were no uninterested parties writing unbiased accounts of his deeds. Therefore much of his personality is shrouded in mystery, making it difficult to determine his motives. An example of this variation in the source material concerns the story of his solving of the Gordian Knot. One version recounts how he brutally hacked through the knot with his sword to the amazement of the crowd. Another version of events gives a more favorable image of Alexander using cunning rather than brute strength; he simply removed the central peg around which the knot was tied. Whether the event actually happened is debatable in itself, but even a story can be biased toward the view of the individual. In spite of this, it is still difficult to wholeheartedly accept Plutarch’s more complimentary claim that Alexander was passionatly driven, yet possesing an amazing sense of self-restraint. Given the writers favorable outlook on Alexander this observation is at best flattery and at worst outright propaganda.
There is, however, some consistency in the written sources. Many refer to his growing instability following the battle of Gaugamela, perhaps showing his decent into megalomania. This could, of course, reflect the common stereotype of an orientalizing king, but the recurrence of these accounts suggests that there may be some truth to this breakdown. Further evidence of Alexander’s erratic behavior comes from accounts of his reaction to the death of his close friend, and possible lover, Hephaestion. In response to this he was reported to have sacked a nearby town and slaughtered its inhabitants as a sacrifice to Hephaestion’s spirit. Added to this is the almost universal acceptance of his culpability in the murder of his friend Cleitus, and the execution of one of his generals for allegedly plotting against him, is often seen as a sign of his growing paranoia. But then again this could simply be interpreted as prudent behavior; a natural response in the wake of a plot to overthrow him.
What can we discern from theses sources? The sheer variations in these accounts show that they must be treated as unreliable at best. A comparison with the oriental sources, though biased in their own way, highlight this discrepancy. The later Geek sources are obviously heavily influenced by their own perceptions of Alexander, and the writings of his contemporaries. Thus, they have been tainted by the sheer propaganda of Callisthenes and Ptolemy. As official historian, Callisthenes was bound to write whatever Alexander told him to write; Ptolemy needed the Alexander myth to ensure his own legitimacy over Egypt. This is why this romanticism prevailed into and beyond the Hellenistic age. Alexander had entered the pantheon of heroes in Greek literature, worshipped in the same way as Hercules and Achilles. Thus, we can never be sure if Alexander intended to be revered in this way, or if he was simply a warmonger who has been gifted with a favorable historical judgment. We can only speculate with regards to his character and make assumptions as to his motivation.
Perhaps the most telling piece of evidence in relation to his own character comes from a quote attributed to him whilst he was still waiting to inherit his father’s title. Following his father’s unification of the Greek city-states the young Alexander remarked, ‘My father will go on conquering until there is nothing extraordinary left for me to do.’ This was a man who was driven to achieve great things so he might be remembered in the same light as his father. Indeed, his father was credited by Plutarch as saying:
‘O my son, look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee.’
To this end Alexander made a great effort to assimilate the various foreign cultures that had become part of his Empire, and has thus been credited with what many have called a “policy of fusion”. This was supposedly to foster a lasting harmony amongst his subjects, but could just have easily have been an attempt to present himself as a benevolent ruler in the eyes of history. As well as conscripting foreigners into his army, he also encouraged his soldiers to take foreign wives and settle throughout the Empire. He himself married two foreign princesses. A mass marriage of Macedonian senior officers and Persian noblewomen took place at Susa. This was obviously an attempt to merge their respective cultures as ‘the marriages were celebrated according to Persian custom.’ Likewise, regiments of Persian boys were to be trained as Macedonian soldiers and dispersed throughout the army. Alexander also began to adopt elements of Persian culture for himself, and Persian dress and mannerisms became commonplace at his court.
Whether this was out of a genuine admiration for their culture or just a practical attempt to integrate this new territory into his Empire is debatable. What is important in the context of this study is that he obviously wanted to appear accepting of foreign cultures and tolerate them as any civilised leader would. His determinatioin was evident by the extreme risk he was taking with this “policy of fusion”. His countrymen seemed to take great offence at the adoption of foreign customs and the installation of Persian soldiers into the army. One of the most controversial additions to courtly life was the Persian custom of proskynesis, which involved the kissing of the hand of one’s social superior. Most Greeks seemed to disaprove of this practice, and Alexander lost a great deal of support as a consequence:
‘… there was no doubt that once Alexander departed from men they would honor him as a god. How much more justifiable it would therefore be to honor him in his lifetime rather than wait for his death, when the honor would be of no benefit to the recipient.’
As this was a symbolic gesture that was ultimately viewed as decadent and autocratic, it led many to fear that Alexander was evolving into an Eastern-style despot. Perhaps this fear was not entirely unfounded, as most historians agree that Alexander soon began referring to himself as Shahanshah, or the “King of Kings”.
Alexander’s use of the Persian tradition of Proskynesis, intended to harmonize his court, represented a huge failure in public relations. This suggests that Alexander was either oblivious to the distress the introduction of this custom would cause, or else he did not intend it to be a way of bringing together the two cultures of his court. Some scholars have argued that this was a much more strategic move on the part of Alexander, who surely must have suspected that it would divide his court. Perhaps he intended to simply force his court to acknowledge his divinity and inspire the cult he thought that he deserved. It could be equally assumed, therefore, that protests from his Macedonian courtiers were not motivated by xenophobia, but by reluctance to acknowledge Alexander as divine. This scenario would not be too hard to believe, given that he did go to extraordinary lengths to foster a cult of personality, stressing the legitimacy of his mastery over the known world. Why would someone go to these lengths if not ensure that posterity would regard him in heroic and uncritical terms?
In Luhrmann’s view, ‘Alexander was the first recorded cult of personality… He was almost a deity.’ Alexander’s deification began following his successful invasion of Egypt. Here he was welcomed as a liberator by the Egyptians, who had suffered greatly under the Persianb Empire. The Egyptian priest of the god Amun declared Alexander to be the sun of Zeus, the new master of the universe. From this point he would affirm his demigod status by referring to Zeus-Ammon as his father. Subsequent images would often depict him with the horns of a ram, a symbol of his divinity. He began to refer to himself nominally as the Basileus of Macedon, Hegemon of the Hellenic League, Pharaoh of Egypt and Shahanshah of Persia. Throughout history his name has been synonymous with the religious figure of Zeus Ammon, and it appears that Alexander himself believed that he possessed some kind of spiritual bond with the god. Why would anyone descend to this level of megalomania if they wished to be seen favorably in the eyes of history?
It is important to note that Alexander’s fostering of his own divinity was not an idea dreamt up in his own imagination. The religious climate of the age fostered a belief in mortal men becoming, or being born, as gods. Hence, there were many Greeks who gave precedent to the belief in ones own divinity, or in allowing others to worship oneself as divine. These were men Alexander could emulate. Menecrates was a doctor who, after supposedly curing epileptics, began to believe himself to be the son of Zeus. Nicagoras of Zeleia believed himself to be the personification of Hermes, and the Spartan General Lysander was also worshipped as a god. Dion of Syracuse was greeted as a god when he returned home, and the Athenian assembly would bestow divine honors on Cassander’s regent Demetrius. The closest example to Alexander’s own case is probably that of the tyrant Clearchus of Heraclea, who liked to dress up as Zeus and was obsessed with Olympian honors. This is similar to description of Alexander given in Athenaeus.
Bosworth agrees that Alexander genuinely thought of himself as Zeus Ammon incarnate. However, he cites a description of Alexander by Athenaeus, mentioning that Alexander had a habit of “dressing up” as a variety of gods, including Artemis, Hermes and Heracles. Did he believe himself to be one with these divine beings as well as Zeus Ammon? As Bosworth notes ‘The strongest evidence that Alexander may have believed that he was Zeus Ammon incarnate is his depiction as such in art.’ Furthermore, Alexander would go on to be worshipped within his own lifetime, and went on to receive divine honours from the Greeks. It is noteworthy that he was worshipped as an aspect of Dionysus; the son of Zeus and a mortal woman. He, like Alexander, was a conqueror after the triumph in India it seemed reasonable that he be associated with Alexander. Ptolemy’s descendent, Ptolemy IV, would be worshipped in a similar way as an aspect of both Dionysus and Alexander. This aside it is clear that Alexander was deeply committed to ensuring his legacy.
He would do this through the commissioning of great works. These would not dedicate to himself, as megalomaniac tyrants had done in the past, but to progress and civilization. This can be best seen in his founding of cities throughout his new empire, the most famous being Alexandria. Named after himself, this would be a centre of learning which would ensure that his name be remembered as a guardian of civilized values. Alexander had made provisions for a string of monuments and work projects, which were deemed too extravagant to implement by his successors. They included the creation of a pyre to Hephaestion; the erection of great temples in Amphipolis, Cyrnus, Delos, Delphi, Dium, Dodona, and Ilium; the building of a magnificent tomb in honor of his father; the construction of a road network stretching the coast of North Africa, along with trading posts, ports and shipyards. Also, Diodorus notes Alexander’s desire to found new cities and ‘transplant of populations from Asia to Europe [and vice versa]… in order to bring the largest continent to common unity and to friendship by means of intermarriage and family ties.’ This would be the culmination of his policy of fusion, and evidence that his wars had a purpose beyond megalomania and personal gratification. Rather, history would show that Alexander sought a lasting peace through conquest and assimilation; he was the savior of the world, not its master.
Alexander the Great certainly made some effort to ensure that posterity would regard him in heroic and uncritical terms. He desired greatness, and that history would remember him as a great civilizer rather than a despotic tyrant. In his mind he would achieve this by the merging of cultures, in a policy of fusion, to create a lasting peace. Through a propaganda campaign he would create a primitive cult of personality and promote himself as the guardian of the civilized world, ordained by the gods to rule and protect its people. Unfortunately, there is not enough contemporary evidence to determine the extent to which he promoted this version of events. The great works he had left unfinished stand testament to all that he wanted to be; the champion of progress. But the building of this legacy may largely have been posthumous, built up over time by a succession of writers.
Whether he genuinely believed in his own divinity is a matter for debate as there is not enough evidence to support this claim. This was of course an age when a man could claim divinity and still be regarded as sane. His father had been celebrated as divine within his own lifetime, and this tradition could flourish through the synchronicity between Greek, Egyptian and Persian beliefs. Moreover, various sources illustrate that Alexander believed in his own divinity. However, the sources would have preferred that his divinity was in the context of heroic mythology, and not as a god. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that Alexander believed the nature of his divinity had been derived from his true father, Zeus Ammon, and that this divinity was as a god and not as a mere hero. If Phillip II was “like” a god, then he “was” a god. It would seem then that Alexander achieved his goal of surpassing his father both politically and religiously.
But to what extant was he responsible for achieving this place in history? Was it really down to his own efforts, or those of a succession of historians and biographers that “bought into” the Alexander myth? As one of history’s most enduring character, every recorded action he took has been evaluated and then re-evaluated time and again. In spite of the wealth of studies on Alexander, there is still no definitive account of the man’s nature and motivations. The conflicting accounts of the man endeared themselves to the creation of any sort of mythos the author desired. It is these accounts that have echoed down the centuries to produce the myth of Alexander today. In conclusion Alexander the Great went to some lengths to ensure that posterity would regard him in heroic and uncritical terms, but his status has more to do with the self perpetuating nature of his own posthumous mythology.