My thoughts about the sources

[Efstathios]

Ok, i want to start a discussion about the authenticity and reliability of the sources.
For example when we study the sources we must have in mind the backrounds of the writers and what sources did they also use. Arrian lived in the second century a.d. He used Ptolemy and Aristovoulos as his sources.Both of them fought with Alexander so they are considered "eye witnesses" and their descriptions are accurate and to the most part they must have been liable sources.
So Arrian is considered a liable and accurate source because he consulted Ptolemy's and Aristovoulos' scripts when he wrote his own work about Alexander.
Arrian focuses mostly in the military part of Alexander's life.And even he is generally defending Alexander's choises in some occasions he critises him.(Parmenion's murder).
Arrian was very popular in his time.He was given many honorable titles and was devoted among other things in politics and philosophy and later he became also a priest of Demetra.
He is consired by modern historians as one of the most reliable and accurate sources about Alexander.
Then we have Plutarh.He lived some years earlier than Arrian.He also consulted Ptolemy's and Aristovoulos' work.But he didnt focus only in the military acchievements of Alexander,but in other aspects of his character too.
We dont know exactly all of his sources so we cannot be sure if some things are his own thoughts or real facts.But generally he is also considered reliable. Lets move on to Curtius Rufus.
He lived in the first half of the 2nd century ad
His work is focused mainly on Alexander's character.But it reveals ignorance of geography, chronology and technical military knowledge.
That gives us an idea about his work.As he was innacurate in the other aspects of Alexander's life he was probably innacurate in the aspects of his character too.He comes in contradiction with Plutarh and Arrian.Therefore with Ptolemy and Aristovoulos too.
Personally i think he is a very unreliable source.
When we examine these writers we must have in mind other aspects too,like where they lived,and what was the general way of life in their time.
Plutarh and Arrian were greeks.They lived in greece.They studied philosophy and other arts in Athens and even if they lived in an era that the ancient greek spirit was decaying ,their way of life,values and education was very similar to this of the greeks of the 4th or 3rd century b.c
Curtius on the other hand was Roman.He wa

[Efstathios]

...continuing from the previous post:
Curtius was a roman.We all know the size of the moral and ethical decay in the roman empire (roman orgies e.t.c).Curtius was surely affected by the mores of his country and era (which were different of those of Plutarh and Arrian's) and this had a severe impact on his work.
This is my personal oppinion of course but it is a fact that the majority of the historians consider him an unreliable source.

[Marilyn]

"Curtius was a roman.We all know the size of the moral and ethical decay in the roman empire (roman orgies e.t.c).Curtius was surely affected by the mores of his country and era (which were different of those of Plutarh and Arrian's) and this had a severe impact on his work. This is my personal oppinion of course but it is a fact that the majority of the historians consider him an unreliable source."But we also can't forget that the "moral decay" of Rome affected only a minor part of the population & was related to social breakdown more than anything else- "the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, the ever-increasing tax burden on the working classes, the increasing drain on the public to support a military machine, corruption and graft at the top levels" sorry can't remember the writer- these were more responsible for the weakening of Rome than "orgies". A lot of the Roman philosophers & such were moral men of good character AS ROME DEFINED IT- they may or may not have "approved" of Greek or Macedonian, Spartan or Illyrian customs and culture,
depending on how they perceived them after so long- & that would go for Arrian and Plutarch, too.
So yeah, we have to consider the sources IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR TIMES, and from how they used language & go from there.

[Efstathios]

I agree ,but dont forget that Curtius was a senator.And the senate was the "center" of this moral decay.But of course we can never know if Curtius had gave in into the way of life of roman aristocracy. We also know that probably one of his main sources was Cleitarhus.
Cleitarhus was in Babylon when Alexander met the embassadors from rome.We know that his own sources might have been Callisthenes ( but his work goes until 329 bc) and some Macedonian soldiers of Alexander.
The soldiers themselves are not a very reliable source because they described only what they saw and what they heard from gossips e.t.c.They didnt really know what was going on behind the curtains.In some occasions their testimonies must have been valuable.
But they couldnt add much knowledge to a search for Alexander's character when on the other hand we have the testimonies of the people that were really close to him, that knew him since he was a boy ,went to excile with him and made plans with him in his tent.
So Curtius used Cleitarhos for his source when he wrote about Alexander's character because he may have found some of the soldiers' gossips interesting but that is what they are, gossips.And a historian cannot be described as reliable when his work is based in gossips. ( There are many reasons for which we can say that soldiers' gossips is not a reliable source.Especially in Alexanders' army)We can discuss that if you want to.)

[abm]

Hi Efstathios,a lot can be said about this topic, but unfortunately I don't have the time to engage with it fully. On the reliability I would like to point out that Curtius is no longer generally considered a bad source. For the Babylon Settlement for instance, he is clearly the best, as Errington already pointed out in 1970 (Journal of Hellenic Studies 90, pp. 49ff, appendix 1). Recently Bosworth published an article in which he very convincingly argued for Curtius reliability in general: A.B. Bosworth, "Plus +ºa change... Ancient Historians and their Sources", Classical Antiquity 22 (2003), pp. 167-197.On the other hand, McKenchie's view [P. McKenchie, "Manipulation of themes in Quintus Curtius Rufus Book 10", Historia 48 (1999), pp. 44-60.] that we shouldn't believe anything Curtius says, unless it is confirmed by another source, is almost universally dismissed.regards,abm

[amyntoros]

Hello Efstathios. I'm usually a little nervous about attempts to completely discredit or dismiss the works of a writer based on his place of birth, the historical period in which he was writing, etc. Yes, Curtius would have been influenced by his upbringing and his life experience, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any truth in what he says. The same thing applies to *all* of the writers, extant or otherwise, and disregarding what one doesn't like in the "vulgate" or otherwise is part of the same pattern. We all do it - ancient writers, modern biographers, and members of this forum - indeed, even Arrian, who's version of the Philotas affair is positively laconic. The affair can certainly be viewed as an event that was uncomplimentary to Alexander, so it seems that Arrian expeditiously decided not to raise too many questions where the answers might not be flattering to Alexander. And although Ptolemy was on campaign with Alexander and therefore able to provide accurate military information (as used by Arrian) remember that he quite literally created a "Cult of Alexander" in Egypt, so he certainly would have tried to avoid including anything uncomplimentary.As for Cleitarchus' book, it was the most popular account of Alexander's expedition, written when there were still authoritative people alive who would have known Alexander personally and could challenge his writings. As J.R.Hamilton says in the first chapter of his Alexander the Great ". . . an incident may be treated sensationally and still be true, and there is no indication, if we may take Diodorus' narrative to be a tolerably accurate reflection of Cleitarchus' book, that he sought to denigrate Alexander. Indeed, Cleitarchus, like Callisthenes, seems to have portrayed Alexander as a 'hero'."Elizabeth Baynham has analyzed Curtius (and Cleitarchus) in great depth in her Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius. It's now published as a trade paperback, making it much more affordable. Definitely worth reading if one is going to argue for or against Curtius, who, as Alexander Meeus just pointed out, is now being reevaluated by many scholars.Best regards,Amyntoros

[Efstathios]

Yes of course we cannot disregard any of these writers.I do not disregard Curtius in it's whole but i am very sceptical to many things that he writes.
Well the same goes for the other writers too.Arrian gives us nice descriptions of the military aspects and events but he does not go into details about Alexander's personality.And of course some things might be Arrian's personal additions. When someone reads the sources he must always be sceptical.
What i dont like is that many people base their oppinions in something that one of this sources has said.And they go beyond that,they publish it as a fact. In history nothing is a fact.At least not for ancient history.We have very few sources and we cannot tell for sure which is reliable and which is not.We can only get the general idea, but we must be very carefull when we express oppinions as facts. I recently saw Oliver Stone's Alexander.Ok, many things were mixed up.Events and people being put in the same scenes for the sake of "saving time for the film"
And of course Oliver Stone in order to show to the people how Alexander had come into a form of personal decay he showed him kissing Bagoas and e.t.c. He was based in Curtius when he thought of that,and it doesnt matter that no other source presents something like that , mr Stone presented it as a fact.Because the millions of people that saw this film and havent read anyhting special about Alexander will now know that Alexander kissed or even worse made other things too with Bagoas,abd consider it as a fact. Is this really what happened?
Who knows the truth? I do not know it but i know that we must be very carefull when we put things like these in movies or books e.t.c as facts.

[amyntoros]

I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately almost every writer, although they are really *interpreting* the sources, presents their information as *fact* - even though they probably don't realize that is what they are doing.V.D. Hanson, for instance, obviously dislikes Alexander, so consciously or otherwise, he takes only the most negative aspects of the ancient writings and uses them to portray Alexander as some kind of evil despot while conviently omitting anything that could contradict his viewpoint. Mary Renault, on the other hand, does the opposite. In The Nature of Alexander she goes out of her way to *explain away* anything she finds disturbing in the histories, so on one page she completely discredits the whole of Curtius' history, and two pages later she uses him to validate her writing simply because his interpretation of events supports hers! It's human nature, that's all. And, of course, Curtius, Arrian, Plutarch, et al. do the same, to more or less of a degree. All any of us can do is assess the information in *all* the sources and form our own opinion. And as is very evident on this forum - there are many, many different conclusions drawn.What I was really trying to say is that it disturbs me when someone explains away *everything* that they don't like in a source as being the prejudice of the writer, simply because they themselves do not view Alexander that way. I'm certainly not accusing you of this, but I have argued against it on various forums over the years. As for Stone's movie, well, it's a fictional version of Alexander and not a biography so he has even more license to show Alexander in any light that he chooses. However, I should add that it is Curtius (6.5.22-23) who states specifically that Alexander had a sexual relationship with Bagoas, but it is in Athenaeus where we find the description of Alexander kissing him. Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists XIII.603a-b
"King Alexander also was madly devoted to boys. Dicaearchus, at any rate, in his book On the Sacrifice at Ilium says that he was so overcome with love for the eunuch Bagoas that, in full view of the entire theatre, he, bending over, caressed Bagoas fondly, and when the audience clapped and shouted in applause, he, nothing loath, again bent over and kissed him.. . . continued

[amyntoros]

But going back to the debate; there's an old expression that more or less sums it up - "You pays your money and you makes your choice." There has never been and never will be a *definitive* Alexander, but that doesn't mean that we can't still argue about and criticize the sources (or the modern biographers). I'm just find myself at odds when some people try and dismiss a source completely out of hand. :-)Amyntoros

[jan]

I taught a short story in which a dog with a cookie in its mouth is found at the city of Pompeii, and is named Bimbo. Just on the basis of the dog the author made up a story, and it was all fiction.So it is with Alexander. Mary Renault took a simple statement from a Curtius remark and wrote Persian Boy. That is creative thinking, but it is still all fiction. I always marvel at women who can write in the person of a eunuch.I like the discussion on the extant sources and their background because I agree that one must know the author who is telling the story. When one reads Steven Pressfield's book Virtues of War, one cannot help but think that this is for a group of Marines.However, rather than say anything negative about VoW, I will just say that the story of Leonidas in Gates of Fire is much better done. I loved it. VoW is still on hold as to my verdict.The movie Alexander is visually Oliver Stone. I had no idea how he had perceived Alexander until the movie was released. He seems to think of Alexander as a great personal hero, and this movie made me go "Duh!"Curtius actually described Bagoas as a sinister and unworthy character, seemingly disliking him and finding his victim the innocent rather than the guilty. It is interesting to see that this little known eunuch reaps so much attention.I have always found the Calanos character to be of much more influence on Alexander than Bagoas, but some author will have to find that character interesting to develop for some fictional novel. In Ancient Warriors, the Classical version, it is Coenus who is the heroic character who finally has the courage to speak to Alexander about his goals. It impressed me that Coenus also died before ever returning to Macedonia.I am interested in the sycophants who surrounded Alexander and flattered him so, worshipping him as a god. He seems to have surrounded himself with interesting characters for authors to develop.All it takes is imagination!

[amyntoros]

Without it seeming like IGÇÖm monopolizing this thread, I just wanted to add something before I lose my online access to my son and the X-box Live community for most of the day. I think I need to clarify that, except for the one comment on StoneGÇÖs movie, I havenGÇÖt been talking about fiction here. Anything goes in a novel, so thereGÇÖs nothing I can really discuss unless the topic is a specific book. And my focus now is on the modern, generalized biography/histories of Alexander such as those written by Worthington, Lonsdale, Prevas, Cartledge, etc. IGÇÖve been considering again the comment about writers presenting their opinions as facts, and IGÇÖve come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible to avoid and still have an interesting book. There *are* some exceptions, but not many.For instance, what is a writer to do to make us want to read a new biography of Alexander? If it is constantly evident that he is only presenting his opinion, I canGÇÖt see it as making a particularly good book. Who would want to continually see GÇ£In my opinionGÇ¥ or GÇ£I believeGÇ¥ or GÇ£I thinkGÇ¥ throughout the entirety of the book? My first thought would be, GÇ£Oh for heavenGÇÖs sake, take a stand and attempt to convince me!GÇ¥And by the same token, how many new but completely straightforward representations of the histories could we possibly read? Frankly, I wouldnGÇÖt bother with any because I can just go to the sources. One could also say that we donGÇÖt need *any* new biographies of Alexander, opinionated or otherwise. However, we obviously do buy and read them if the frequent discussions here on new books are any indication. And the reason must be that we *want* to know what the author thinks about Alexander. Sure, we sometimes rip a book to metaphorical pieces (and sometimes the author too!), but isnGÇÖt that the fun of it all?Best regards,Amyntoros

[marcus]

Absolutely.When I did my MA, we were told at the very beginning of the course that they *expected* us to be polemic in our essays - no point in all this wishy-washy "I think", stuff, which the tutors all thought was far too Uriah Heap.So long as people back up their arguments I'm happy to read/listen, even if I disagree. It's the baseless polemics that get on my nerves (ie. some of the statements of Worthington and Prevas, mainly, which hold little water when compared with the sources).All the bestMarcus

[Efstathios]

All these (about the different points of view in books) are good ,when they dont cross the line of "authenticity" and reality.
When you are writing a book about a figure like Alexander you cannot cross the line of historical reality.It's the same as i would write a book about the battle of Marathon for example and said that the Persians actually decided by themselves to leave the battlefield because they changed their minds and greece wasnt a goal to them anymore.So they werent actually defeated but just changed their minds and left.I would alter what really happened and it would be a historical desecration the least. In Alexander's case we dont know the whole truth and what really happened so we can write various fictional or not incidents.But we must keep in mind that we are talking about one of the biggest men in history ,so writing anything that is not validated and is a "touchy" matter isnt the best approach.And that for various reasons. When we are talking about something that is not a historical fact,i can say argument A and you can say argument B.A third person could say an other third argument and so on.
But what is really the point that people write books about something that is not validated (Alexander's sexuality) and even make fictional stories about it ,and not write about something that would be of more importance about his life or his military campaign?
Because as it is already stated in a previous post many books have been written about the well known military campaign so that any other book about the same subject would get boring and would repeat the same events. But is this a well enough excuse to start writing things about the more private moments of a historical figure, moments that are not facts?For me no.Because it surely starts an endless war between those who say:A and those who say:B. And that because it is a "touchy" matter.And touchy matters concerning historical figures if they are not facts then they provoke peoples feelings and oppinions. And then the result is frustrating.I watch a movie about Alexander (which is intended to be watched by millions) and i see the love between Alexander and Hephaestion and Bagoas kisses and they make much more impression than the battle of Gaugameles is supposed to make.
I search the internet about Hephaestion and i see:"Hephaestion ,Alexander's lover" as a title in sites that are supposed to provided historical information. These things frustrate me.And the source

[Efstathios]

...Continuation from previous post: These things frustrate me.And the source of them are books like those mentioned in previous posts.That's is the reason for the polemic that is going on. It is nice that people have ideas and express them to books but they must take rensponsibility for what they write ,and if it is not a historical fact and could "provoke" then they must be ready for a polemic too... This is not bad, because sometimes out of these kind of polemics some good stuff eventually come out.But in Alexander's case it is far complicated for that to happen. Unfortunately there is much (many times unintentional) missinformation about history.For example a single word,like "lover" as it was used in ancient greece,was translated wrong,according to the modern meaning of it, in contradiction with the sources that specificly give a different meaning.
Then suddenly when we see "lovers" in ancient sources we translate into "lovers"as we use it today.That is wrong.
Plutarh knew that there was going to be something like this and clears the matter in his books.
For example he writes about the sacred band of Thebes: "Whoever thinks that the "love" between the soldiers of the sacred band had anything to do with body contact and basilar or villainous things, is a basilar himself." Pretty harsh statement that Plutarh made but in this way he wanted to show that things were not as they seemed to be. Many other writers also inform us about this.The "love" between a boy and his mentor or the "love" between one man with another,the love that had nothing to do with body contact or anything like this. I really do not know why it is missinterpreted,when it so clear stated by the ancients.Many other things are too, things that go beyond our imagination and we would change our whole believes about the ancient world. I write these things not to become a "polemic" writer myself but only from the eager that i have for truth and always in good spirit

[amyntoros]

Oh dear, I must be quite naive as I hadn't realized that your argument was completely focused on Alexander's sexuality - I thought your reference to Stone's movie was just a remark in passing. All I can say is that this also is a matter of interpretation, no matter how much you want to believe that you know the *facts*.I discussed earlier in this thread how writers can, unconsciously or otherwise, be very selective in their use of the sources, bringing to the fore all references that support their opinion of Alexander and ignoring all those that don't. This is beginning to happen here; you found your quote from Plutarch's Pelopidas (which I know of in a rather different translation) while I could produce other quotes which support an entirely different point of view. However, there's already another thread discussing Alexander's sexuality so I won't get into that now. All I can say is that any writer who believes that Alexander's had sexual relationships with men has as much right as you do to deny it. You call it misinterpretation, but it isn't - it's simply a different interpretation. If the facts were so well established then some very excellent scholars wouldn't be able to argue the issue from one side or the other. I realize that you believe you know the truth, but there are others who see the truth differently. If their statements provoke it is because you don't agree with them, not because they are *wrong*!

You are entitled to your opinion on Alexander's sexuality, but in this instance I must disagree with statements like the one which began your post:"All these (about the different points of view in books) are good ,when they dont
cross the line of "authenticity" and reality. When you are writing a book about a figure like Alexander you cannot cross the line of historical reality."
It made sense to me initially, until I read further and realized that you were discussing Alexander's sexuality. I'm sorry, Efstathios, but you don't own the truth on that topic - or any other aspect of Alexander's personality for that matter - and neither does anyone else. (And there are certainly many, many scholars who would argue against your later interpretation of sexuality in ancient Greece.) All we can do is debate the subject and form our own opinions, opinions which often reflect more about ourselves than they do about Alexander.Best regards,
Amyntoros