Alexander Who?

    Alexander the Great was the master manipulator of his own image but time has been more than kind by nurturing and honing his reputation as well.  Plutarch, Arrian and Rufus each used existing resources to write their biographies of Alexander which are denied to us by time.  These original resources were written by Alexander’s contemporaries and undoubtedly contained vital information, both good and bad,  that we will never recover.  We have a good idea of their contents thanks to our “intermediary” biographers but that means we also have to access that information through their filter; in short, their “why” for writing.  No one has ever written for the sake of writing - they always have a reason: as in all art forms, there is a muse.  Our intermediary biographers were Romans and the Romans were, above all things, organised.  Rome stopped at nothing in order to systematically arrange a society that supported the state completely, so the Empire was consolidated and safe.  Additionally, the Romans built things to last.  Don’t believe me? Just look at the width of railroad tracks in the United States today and the liturgy in any Christian church.  The width of wagon tracks and the standardisation of Christianity through the First Council of Nicaea are all products of Roman regulation that we feel the effects of today.  So perhaps our interpretation of Alexander the Great has been regulated too. 

Mosaic of Alexander at Issus (Author's collection copyright 2013)

Arrian - 2nd century AD: Roman citizen by father’s status as a Roman Administrator. 

Quintis Curtius Rufus - 1st century AD: borne into one of the original Roman noble families.
Plutarch - 1st century AD: a naturalised Roman Citizen.

    As shown above, each of our biographers had a reason to write for Rome. Whether to uphold a family name or ingratiate themselves to the Republic, their writings could easily mean their demise if not presented properly.  The Pantheon of gods was still the religion of state in the second century AD so any presentation would need to include references to this in order to be legitimate and that is exactly what we find in their writings.  Why else would obscure references to the god’s favouring Alexander be included in their accounts.  After the battle for Xanthos in Lycia (modern day Turkey), an inscribed tablet was found in a nearby spring.  This ancient tablet apparently told of a prophesy of doom for the Persians at the hands of the Greeks - which was meant to be Alexander and his army due to the timing of its discovery.  Whether in Greece, Turkey or Libya, we are told that Alexander actively sought out oracles or tried to full-fill prophesies through his actions.  He was deified by the Egyptians and his ascension as the Persian King brought with it a hint of godly status as well, because the house of Cyrus was descended from gods.  Never mind that Alexander himself was called the Son of Zeus and had long claimed Heracles as an ancestor.

    Why then, would these seemingly obscure references to exaltedness be included in the biographies by our Romans?  If they were writing for Roman knowledge alone, these items would have been left out as the drivel of ancient and unsophisticated historians, yet, they were included and perhaps amplified in importance.  The answer lies in human nature.  Our biographers were trying to ensure their status within a very forgetful and ungrateful Roman society by producing comprehensive works that not only entertain and inform but also teach lessons in a moralistic manner.  

    In these works, Alexander was a god on earth.  He conquered most of the known world.  He survived countless battles and court intrigues by the dozen.  He was impetuous and emotional, yet brilliant and benevolent.  Capable of great chivalry and even greater acts of violence.  When presented with problems, Alexander met each one head-on with a singleness of purpose that always saw him through successfully.  To our biographers, Alexander is, in short, Rome.  

This would not have been lost on Roman audiences reading these works and the more subtle message therein would also have been received well.  The morality tale spoke of this great individual who traveled too far from home too fast.  A man who, despite all his perfection, was seduced by foreign ideas and customs and became, increasingly, distant from his true purpose; living hedonistically as savages do.  He was eventually reminded of his purpose by his countrymen but by the time he realised his errors and tried to return, it was too late.  He could never go home.

    This part of their tale, above all, was their greatest legacy for Rome.  An inverted roadmap for personal and empirical comportment by highlighting the negative aspects of failure to comply.  In doing this, our authors have ensured their place in history not by writing great works on a historic general, but by creating a hero for all time who was old enough to win the world and young enough to lose it.