Image of Alexander's Sarcophagus(Author's collection) |
We know from contemporary biographers that he was creative in his reports back to Macedonia but this is all second-hand speculation as not one of those biographies is extant today. We are forced to rely Arrian and Plutarch and Rufus - all of which were writing hundreds of years after the fact but cited these originals as their sources. Could it be that today's generals could take another, more subtle, lesson from Alexander's playbook?
By all accounts though Alexander was a master of perception management and it would seem that this has extended through the years. Despite many indicators that Alexander was impetuous and emotional, his reputation today is that of a great leader who managed his meagre resources superbly.
This was achieved by limiting the exposure outlets that were available to the public and controlling them completely - Callisthenes (an embedded biographer) didn't make it home alive. Centuries later, the worst that chroniclers could do was to highlight the ire of Alexander's troops over his tendency to "go native" but not one of these writers has acknowledged the need for Alexander to ingratiate himself to the recently defeated and still restive native populations that surrounded him and his small band of Macedonian soldiers. Additionally, our writer's have never been placed in perspective themselves; they were spinning a moral tale for a specific audience in their own times. This story became cautionary over time towards their own leaders - An intrepid westerner is seduced by the vices of the East which eventually kill him. In other words: don't be like Alexander, cling tightly to your Roman values while serving the Republic in far-flung corners of the realm (their audience was Rome). It would seem that the media has been a tool of the ruling elite for quite some time.
Alexander against Darius III at Issus. A 1st century BC floor mosaic from Pompeii, Italy. (author's collection copyright 2013) |