of the original volumes in the library of Alexander have disappeared; or they were taken out and
never returned by writers of the Roman era, who cut and pasted quotations and information from the
originals into their own books about Alexander, leaving us to figure out what the earliest works really
said. The task is difficult but crucial.
To understand why the oracle of Zeus Ammon at Siwah revealed that a twenty-five-year-old
Macedonian king would reach the ends of the world, we have to identify the major ancient sources for
Alexander’s life. We need to know who those sources are; when they lived; what they wrote; for
whom they wrote or created objects; and why they wrote or made what they did. Only when we have
understood the viewpoint of our sources can we assess the value of the information they have
provided.
This is true whether our information comes from literary accounts or from material evidence such
as inscriptions, coins, or archaeological artifacts. We can only infer who the real Alexander the Great
was from what our sources have chosen to record about him and his deeds. Without our sources, there
simply is no Alexander, real or otherwise.
The ancient sources for Alexander’s life can be divided up broadly into three groups: a handful of
literary compositions and material evidence produced during his lifetime; about a dozen literary
works belonging to the period from around 323 into the late second century B.C.E.; and, finally, about
half a dozen narrative accounts written between the middle of the first century B.C.E. and the fourth
century C.E.
CONTEMPORARY SOURCES
The most important contemporary literary source for Alexander’s deeds is Callisthenes. Callisthenes
was probably a nephew of the great philosopher Aristotle. He was selected to accompany Alexander
on his campaign against the Persians and to write an account of it, which was entitled The Deeds of
Alexander. Although the work has not survived, from the parts used by later writers we know that
Callisthenes’ book was eulogistic, glorifying Alexander’s military achievements and his claims to
divine parentage. When later authors quote from Callisthenes’ work, it is important to remember that
Callisthenes did not give us “just the facts,” but rather what Alexander himself wanted to be known or
believed about what had happened. Callisthenes was Alexander’s official mouthpiece during the
campaigns. For that very reason his perspective is invaluable.
Other works composed during Alexander’s conquest of the Persian empire are nearly impossible to
evaluate. A certain Anaximenes wrote two books titled “On Alexander” dealing with events down to
the battle of the Issos (333), but only a few fragments survive. Somewhat more substantial are the
fragments of Alexander’s land surveyors, who went along on the expedition to measure the “stages”
(distances) the Macedonians traveled.
The historical value of another contemporary document, the so-called Ephemerides, or Royal
Diaries, is difficult to assess. It is purportedly a diary of Alexander’s reign kept by his royal
secretary, Eumenes of Cardia, and Diodotus of Erythrae; what has survived and is quoted by later
authors largely focuses upon Alexander’s last days and appears to confirm that he died of a fever. The
evidence of the Royal Diaries, however, must be used with caution.
We also possess contemporary inscriptions, papyri, coins, sculpture, and archaeological artifacts
that help cast light on Alexander’s reign and personality. These material artifacts, however, cannot be
taken at face value. “Object” does not mean “objective.” Objects such as inscriptions need to be
analyzed carefully with respect to their form and content before we can use them as evidence for what
happened.
NEAR-CONTEMPORARY SOURCES
After Alexander’s death a number of participants in the campaign wrote accounts of aspects of the
expedition or histories of Alexander’s reign. Included among these was Onesicritus of Astypalaea, the
helmsman of the royal galley. The title of Onesicritus’ lost work remains uncertain: in some sources it
is called The Education of Alexander; in others, a history of Alexander. In antiquity Onesicritus was
Macedonians’ encounters with the so-called Gymnosophists, and for Alexander’s conquests in India.
Nearchus, the son of Androtimus from the island of Crete, was one of Alexander’s friends banished
from Macedon by Philip II after the Pixodarus affair. Recalled after Philip’s death, Nearchus
commanded Alexander’s fleet when it sailed down the Indus River and from the mouth of the Indus
River along the coast to the mouth of the Euphrates.
Nearchus’ memoirs of the campaign have not survived. From the fragments that appear in later
accounts, though, we know that he emphasized the difficulties of the fleet’s voyage along the sea,
perhaps to enhance his own reputation at the expense of his rival Onesicritus.
Another vital source of information from the near-contemporary period is Ptolemy I, the son of
Lagos (c. 367/66–283 B.C.E.). Ptolemy was made one of Alexander’s personal bodyguards in the fall
of 330, and subsequently was given many important commands. After Alexander’s death he hijacked
Alexander’s body to Egypt, and established himself as satrap there. He later took on the titles of king
and pharaoh and founded the Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled Egypt until the death of Kleopatra VII, in
30 B.C.E.
Ptolemy wrote a history of Alexander’s reign, although it has not survived. Among other later
authors, Arrian used it extensively. We know that Ptolemy’s history or memoir covered the period
from at least 335 until Alexander’s death. His narrative perhaps focused upon military matters.
But Ptolemy too did not simply present the “facts.” Rather, he had his own agenda. He emphasized
his own contributions to Alexander’s success and denigrated or ignored the achievements of his
rivals. In this way he justified his own political position after Alexander’s death.
Another near-contemporary source of great importance is Aristobulus of Cassandreia, who took
part in Alexander’s expedition, perhaps in some minor capacity. Aristobulus wrote a history of
Alexander’s reign sometime after 301, begun when its author was eighty-four years old. Only
fragments remain.
In antiquity Aristobulus was considered a flatterer, who claimed (for instance) that Alexander only
drank heavily to be sociable. Nevertheless, Aristobulus’ history is a vital source of information for
Alexander’s campaigns in India and for the details he provides about geography, botany, and local
customs.
Alexander’s court chamberlain, Chares of Mytilene, also wrote a (lost) Histories of Alexander.
His work is a vital source of information about Alexander’s attempted introduction of prostration at
his court and about the mass marriage of his officers to Persian noblewomen at Susa in 324.
Cleitarchus of Alexandria, who did not accompany Alexander into Asia, wrote a history of his
reign in at least twelve books, dated as early as 310. Cleitarchus’ lost work was used extensively by
authors of the late Roman republican and imperial periods. It probably formed the core of the so-
called Vulgate tradition, from which Jus
tin’s epitome of Pompeius Trogus and the so-called Metz
Epitome (a compilation dated to the late antique period that followed the same tradition as Curtius)
were derived.
Cleitarchus was criticized in antiquity for inaccuracy and overembellishment. At the same time,
because he did not go along on the expedition, his history was not subject to the influences of the
Macedonian court, and the information he provides should be seen as an important independent
perspective.
At one time there also existed various pamphlets written by contemporaries of Alexander such as
Ephippus of Olynthus and Nicobule. What we know about Ephippus’ pamphlet “On the Death [or
“Funeral”] of Alexander and Hephaestion” is based upon five passages found in the Deipnosophistae
(“Learned Banqueteers”) of Athenaeus. Even taking into account the likelihood that Athenaeus’
selection of passages from Ephippus concerns his own literary interests, we can surmise that
Ephippus represented Alexander as bibulous, devoted to luxurious living, violent, and solicitous of
flattery. Ephippus clearly was hostile to Alexander.
The theme of Alexander’s excessive drinking, right up to his very last banquet, was taken up in a
pamphlet by another writer, a woman named Nicobule, if the name, which means “the Victorious in
Council” or “the Counselor of Victory,” is not a pseudonym.
Alexander’s drinking habits also were discussed in the Histories of Polycleitus, a Thessalian from
the city of Larissa. Polycleitus, who probably accompanied Alexander’s expedition, provided
important geographical details about Alexander’s campaigns, especially the rivers of Asia. From one
of the fragments cited by Strabo, it is clear that Polycleitus played a role in the creation of the myth
that Alexander reached the boundary of Asia.
Grouped among the flatterers of Alexander by some ancient writers was Medius of Larissa. Medius
accompanied Alexander on the expedition to Asia and served as one of the trierarchs of Alexander’s
fleet on the Indus River. Most importantly, however, Medius was famous for hosting the drinking
party at which Alexander either came down with the fever that killed him or was poisoned.
Hieronymos of Cardia did not take part in Alexander’s expedition to Asia, and his now lost history
began at Alexander’s death and continued to at least the death of King Pyrrhus of Epirus (272). But
his work was a particularly important source for Diodorus Siculus, who apparently duplicated
Hieronymus’ verbatim citation of the so-called Exiles’ Decree, which Alexander issued in 324, and
also gives us some invaluable information about its reception.
Finally, two writers of the third or second century B.C.E., Hegesias of Magnesia and Aristus of
Salamis, should be mentioned. Hegesias was roundly criticized by writers such as Dionysius of
Halicarnassus and Cicero for his bad taste in the use of rhymes, as well as for his “matter,” which
Cicero thought was just as absurd as his manner of speech. His work was also included among those
books that were filled with “fables, things unheard of, incredible.”
Aristus perhaps came from the city of Salamis on Cyprus and dates to the mid-second century B.C.E.
Aristus also was interested in the drinking parties of the Macedonians and in Alexander’s habit of
dressing up like the god Hermes.
LATER NARRATIVE ACCOUNTS
Books 17 and 18 of Diodorus Siculus’ Bibliotheke, or Library, a universal history from mythological
times to 60 B.C.E., was composed closest in time to the contemporary or near-contemporary sources.
The Bibliotheke was perhaps completed around 30 B.C.E. Cleitarchus was certainly one of Diodorus’
most important sources for his information about Alexander.
Diodorus was especially interested in issues of individual and collective morality; throughout his
vast work he judges individuals and nations by how benevolently they acted while enjoying good
fortune. Diodorus’ picture of Alexander must be understood within the framework of his history’s
program for moral living.
Diodorus’ closest chronological contemporary, Strabo of Amaseia (Pontus) (born c. 64 B.C.E.,
survived until after 21 C.E.), wrote a Geographia in seventeen books, using Aristobulus and Nearchus
as his sources from among the contemporary historians of Alexander. Book 15 of Strabo’s work
relies on the accounts of those Alexander historians who visited the northern parts of India.
The way Strabo interpreted Alexander’s deeds reveals some Stoic overtones; Strabo also “strongly
criticized historians of Alexander who distorted facts for the sake of flattery and betrayed the truth for
propaganda purposes by ‘moving’ whole regions, such as the Caucasus, to the end of the world in
order to create the impression that Alexander had reached the boundaries of the oikoumene. ”
Quintus Curtius Rufus wrote during the first or early second century C.E. (probably during the reign
of the Roman emperor Claudius, 41–54). The first two books of his ten-book history of Alexander
( Historiae Alexandri Magni), which apparently covered events down to the distribution of satrapies
after Alexander’s death, are lost. Curtius Rufus made extensive use of Cleitarchus and of Ptolemy.
His history, while accurate in many respects, is filled with highly rhetorical speeches he could not
possibly have heard and unverifiable attributions of motive.
Next we have L. Mestrius Plutarchos, known today as Plutarch, from Chaeronea in Greece, born
probably before 50 C.E. and died after 120. Among other works, Plutarch wrote twenty-three parallel
lives of famous Greeks and Romans. At the beginning of his life of Alexander (paired with Julius
Caesar), Plutarch tells us that his object was not to create continuous political history but to exemplify
virtue or vice in the careers of great men. Plutarch’s life of Alexander should be read not as a factual
account but as a kind of moral biography, written from the point of view of a well-read, sophisticated,
and cosmopolitan inhabitant of the Roman empire who was influenced by Stoic ideals. Plutarch’s
moral biography of Alexander is filled with gossip and salacious anecdotes, and is particularly
valuable for its chapters on his childhood.
Lucius Flavius Arrianus, Arrian for short, from Nicomedia in Bithynia, lived from about 86 to 160
C.E. and became a Roman consul (about 129) and governor (legate) of Cappadocia (131–137). The
author of many important lost historical works, his Anabasis (“Journey Up-Country”) of Alexander, in
seven books, begins with Alexander’s accession and ends with his death in Babylon in 323. A shorter
companion work, the Indike, recounts Nearchus’ voyage from the mouth of the Indus River to Susa,
and is based upon Eratosthenes, Megasthenes, and Nearchus. For the Anabasis, Arrian’s primary
sources were Ptolemy and Aristobulus, contemporaries and friends of Alexander who had a mostly
favorable view of the king. As a result, Arrian’s account of Alexander’s “journey up-country” focuses
on military affairs and is largely sympathetic to Alexander.
Finally, of the main later narrative accounts we have Marcus Iunianus Iustinus, or Justin, the third-
or fourth-century C.E. author of a Latin epitome (abridgment or summary) of the otherwise lost
“Philippic Histories” ( Historiae Philippicae) of Pompeius Trogus, a late-first-century B.C.E.
&
nbsp; Vocontian from Gallia Narbonensis (Vasio or Vaison-la-Romaine) who covered Macedon in books
7–12 of his histories. Justin occasionally adds factual details about Alexander’s life that no other
sources report, and he presents some of those details in a way that suggests that while Alexander got
his taste for strong, unmixed wine from his father, it was to his Molossian mother, Olympias, that he
owed his thirst for blood.
Important evidence is also to be found in the Deipnosophistae, or “Learned Banqueteers,” of
Athenaeus from Naucratis in Egypt. This colorful work was completed in the years immediately
following the death of the Roman emperor Commodus (c. 192 C.E.) and supposedly reports on
discussions among guests about philosophy, literature, law, medicine, and many other topics at a
banquet over a number of days during which some important events and incidents related to
Alexander’s life were discussed. Athenaeus provides some valuable information about the
ceremonial practices and luxury of the Macedonian royal court.
FLACKS, HACKS, AND HISTORIANS
Such are the main ancient literary and material sources for Alexander’s life and deeds. Among the
writers who composed works while Alexander was alive or in the century after his death, there were
perhaps no outright knaves. There were, however, various flacks, hacks, and party operatives,
spinners of tall tales, flatterers and scandalmongers, self-aggrandizing Colonel Blimps and puritanical
pamphleteers, along with one or two scientists and independent historians. In a modern bookstore the
works of these writers would be shelved across many departments, from “Biography” to the magazine
rack.
As a general rule, the closer the literary sources were composed in time and space to Alexander’s
lifetime, the more sympathetic they appear to be to him, as far as we can judge. But none of the
earliest works have survived in their original forms. Virtually everything we think we know about the
substance of these lost works, whether sympathetic or hostile to Alexander, derives from quotes or
citations embedded in later accounts. Nor do we know for certain how or why those later writers
selected these passages from the truly contemporary sources to quote or reference in their own works.