Was Alexander the Great poisoned by arsenic?

[AdamKvanta]

Even though this topic was already discussed in this thread https://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30626, I will try to present new arguments for the arsenic hypothesis.

For a general overview of Alexander's death:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_ ... _the_Great
https://www.academia.edu/27158916/Alexa ... able_Death
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9078372/
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/365738
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24369045/

Ancient sources for Alexander's death as summarized by Adrienne Mayor:

Several ancient Greek and Roman historians described Alexander’s last days. They had access to many contemporary texts that no longer survive, including a mysterious source called the “Royal Diaries” or “Journal”. We know that five men close to Alexander wrote accounts of his death: Alexander’s bodyguard and friend Ptolemy, his admiral Nearchus, his secretary Eumenes, his chamberlain Chares, and his military engineer Aristobulus. Unfortunately their memoirs are all lost except for fragmentary quotations preserved by later historians, including Diodorus Siculus (first century BC); Plutarch (about AD 100); Pliny and Quintus Curtius Rufus (both first century AD); Arrian, Pausanias, and Justin (second century AD); Aelian (about AD 200); and the so-called History or Romance of Alexander (dating to about AD 250; several manuscript versions exist).
https://www.academia.edu/27158916/Alexa ... able_Death

List of the ancient sources for Alexander's death:

Pseudo-Callisthenes, Alexander Romance [Greek & Armenian versions, Syriac version], III. 30-31
https://www.attalus.org/translate/alexa ... as%20often

Liber de Morte
http://web.archive.org/web/200705200912 ... /liber.asp

Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, XVII. 117, 118
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... 0sacrifice

Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander, X. iv., v.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 07&seq=525

Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander, X. x.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 07&seq=565

Marcus Junianus Justinus, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, XII. 13-16
http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/ ... 20occasion

Plutarch, The Parallel Lives, 75-77
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/ ... 0sensitive

Arrian, Anabasis, 7.24-7.27
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anab ... hapter_XXV

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, XXX. 53
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... substances

Aelian, Various History, book III. chap. XXIII.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/aelian/va ... tml#chap23

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.18.6
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... ection%3D6

Pseudo-Plutarch, Lives of the Ten Orators, IX. (849 F)
https://www.attalus.org/translate/orato ... e%20poison

Arguments:

I don't know who was the first who come up with the arsenic hypothesis but usually, it is connected with Paul C. Doherty:

In Alexander the Great: The Death of a God, Paul C. Doherty claimed that Alexander was poisoned with arsenic by his possibly illegitimate half-brother Ptolemy I Soter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_ ... eat#Causes

I don't have Doherty's book so I don't know his arguments for the arsenic hypothesis but I found some arguments myself:

1) Similarities between the poisoning of Alexander the Great and Charles Francis Hall
Wikipedia says:

Charles Francis Hall (c.1821 – November 8, 1871) was an American Arctic explorer, best known for his collection of Inuit testimony regarding the 1845 Franklin Expedition and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death...

...upon returning to the ship from a sledging expedition with an Inuit guide to a fjord which he named Newman Bay, Hall suddenly fell ill after drinking a cup of coffee. He collapsed in what was described as a fit. For the next week he suffered from vomiting and delirium, then seemed to improve for a few days. At that time, he accused several of the ship's company, including Bessels, of having poisoned him. Shortly thereafter, Hall began suffering the same symptoms, and died on November 8.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Francis_Hall

A later autopsy confirmed the alleged poisoning by arsenic:

In August, 1968, an autopsy was performed on the body at the Greenland burial site. Samples of hair, bone and fingernail were analyzed for arsenic by neutron-activation analysis, which showed markedly increased levels in the portion of the hair and fingernails grown during the last two weeks of Hall's life.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N ... 4022821406

I argue that this case is similar to Alexander's poisoning, as summarized by Leo Schep:

... the account in the Romance describes the onset of Alexander’s illness with a sudden sharp pain in his upper right quadrant that occurred at the banquet, followed by 11 days of weakness and an inability to speak, yet without fever. This account accuses several of Alexander’s closest allies and participants in the banquet arranged by Medius of causing his death by an unnamed poison. The existence of the poisoning tradition is also acknowledged by four of the main sources (Arrian, Plutarch, Curtius, and Diodorus), even though they appear to favor the explanation of Alexander’s death by natural causes. Justin, however, follows the Romance tradition in stating unequivocally that the king was indeed the victim of a poisoning conspiracy, and this tradition is echoed in many late peripheral accounts, such as Valerius Maximus, Orosius, and the Metz Epitome. It was allegedly Alexander’s cupbearer, Iollas (or Iolaus), who poisoned the wine, on the instructions of his father Antipater and his brother Cassander. Following bitter disagreements with Alexander’s mother Olympias, Antipater was threatened with replacement as regent of Macedonia, and fearing for his life, decided on a preemptive strike against the king. However, only during the final phase of his illness do both versions agree: the Macedonian soldiers, in a state of near-mutiny fueled by the rumors of Alexander’s ill health, were permitted to file past Alexander’s deathbed and pay their last respects. Both accounts report that Alexander was too weak to speak and could only acknowledge their presence with the odd, almost imperceptible movement of his head or fingers. His illness lingered for 11 – 12 days during which time he was weak though fully conscious, until the last hours of his life.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24369045/

One can also find other similarities that I didn't quote here, e.g. Alexander's vomiting (but described as voluntary), Hall's later dementia (compared with Alexander's later inability to speak), and a good condition of both bodies after death.

2) Descriptions of Alexander's death are compatible with arsenic poisoning
The description of Alexander's poisoning symptoms (vomiting, abdominal pain, muscle weakness, death) matches the symptoms as described by WHO:

The immediate symptoms of acute arsenic poisoning include vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. These are followed by numbness and tingling of the extremities, muscle cramping and death, in extreme cases.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... il/arsenic

However, Leo Schep disagrees:

Others have suggested arsenic as the cause of Alexander’s death. The onset of symptoms following acute poisoning are rapid with nausea, vomiting and severe diarrhea, proceeded by inflammation, necrosis, and perforation of the intestine, thereby leading to hypovolemia and shock. Death occurs within 24 h to 4 days. These symptoms do not match those displayed by Alexander the Great and can therefore also be disregarded.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24369045/

When I checked the sources of these claims I found that "inflammation, necrosis, and perforation of the intestine, thereby leading to hypovolemia and shock" is a description of "acute poisoning of massive proportions, almost always as an attempt at suicide". But we don't know how much arsenic was used in Alexander's case and if it was "massive".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 13/?page=5

When I checked the source for the survival duration I found that the "4 days" is not an absolute upper limit:

A 23 year old male who ingested 8 g of arsenic survived for eight days. ... Depending on the quantity consumed, death usually occurs within 24 hours to four days.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... p00391.pdf

After all, I already mentioned a confirmed case of arsenic poisoning of Charles Francis Hall when the survival duration was 14 days.

Some argue that the symptoms of arsenic poisoning are only described in unreliable sources like Alexander Romance or Liber de Morte but the only piece of evidence from Alexander Romance that I couldn't find elsewhere is Alexander's vomiting.

3) The poisonous water from the Styx River could have extreme presence of arsenic
There are many accounts that state that Alexander was poisoned by water from the Styx River, e.g. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, XXX. 53:

Of all known substances, it is a mule's hoofs only that are not corroded by the poisonous waters of the fountain Styx: a memorable discovery made by Aristotle, to his great infamy, on the occasion when Antipater sent some of this water to Alexander the Great, for the purpose of poisoning him.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... substances

We can also check Wikipedia:

The water of this Arcadian Styx was said to be poisonous and able to dissolve most substances. The first-century natural philosopher Pliny, wrote that drinking its water caused immediate death, and that the hoof of a female mule was the only material not "rotted" by its water. According to Plutarch the poisonous water could only be held by an ass's hoof, since all other vessels would "be eaten through by it, owing to its coldness and pungency." While according to Pausanias, the only vessel that could hold the Styx's water (poisonous to both men and animals) was a horse's hoof. There were ancient suspicions that Alexander the Great's death was caused by being poisoned with the water of this Styx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styx#The_Arcadian_Styx

The Styx River is considered to be a real river called Mavroneri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavroneri. As far as I know, this river hasn't been tested for toxicity yet. However, Poland has its own Styx river called Trująca: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truj%C4%85ca. The name could literally mean "poisonous" probably because of its naturally high levels of arsenic. This river was tested and it was found out that: "Such a high concentration of total arsenic in the second sample from Trująca Stream must be caused by the local geochemical structure... ...so high concentrations of arsenic in this region are due to its geogenic characteristics".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... %20arsenic

4) Alexander's body was preserved after death by "arsenic mummification"
Arsenic poisoning can preserve a body after death, like in the case of Napoleon:

Chief among the theories for the exiled emperor’s death is arsenic poisoning — an idea reinforced by the remarkable condition of his body when it was exhumed in 1840 for reburial in Paris. Because it is also toxic to microorganisms, arsenic slows down the decomposition of human tissue, a phenomenon described as “arsenic mummification.”
https://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs ... n-poisoned

Now let's compare it with a description of Alexander's body in Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander, X. x.:

It was the seventh day since the king's body had been lying in its coffin, for the attention of all was diverted from so solemn a duty to the establishment of public order. ... I report what is recorded rather than believed: when at last his friends had leisure to care for Alexander's lifeless body, those who had entered the room saw it corrupted by no decay, nor even by the slightest discoloration. The vigour too which comes from the breath of life had not yet left his face. And so the Egyptians and Chaldeans who were ordered to care for the body after their manner, at first, as if he were still breathing, did not dare to lay their hands upon him; then after praying that it might be right and lawful for mortals to handle a god, they emptied the body of entrails, the golden coffin was filled with perfumes, and the emblem of his rank was placed upon the king's head.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 07&seq=565

[sikander]

Greetings,

Thanks for the links... sounds interesting.

Regards,
Sikander

[Alexias]

Thanks for this. I haven't followed up all the links, but I think there are a few things that are worth considering.

1/ Was Alexander actually poisoned? The poisoning theory only arose about 5 years after Alexander's death when the various factions were slinging mud at each other.

2/ If he was poisoned, by whom? Who gained most? If it was planned by someone, nobody came out on top.

3/ There is a theory, a 'conspiracy of neglect' - I think the phrase is Bosworth's - that the top generals sort of let Alexander die because they didn't want to go traipsing off to Arabia and each had an eye on their own chances of succeeding.

4/ If there was arsenic in the water, would it have been in sufficient quantity to kill someone? A river that lethal would have killed off every man, fish and animal and plant that came near it. There are plenty of rivers that contain dissolved chemicals, that appear to be coloured or coat deposits in limescale but they are drinkable.

5/ Renault suggested that Alexander may have been in a deep coma when he was pronounced dead and could have survived for a couple more days. Three days is about the limit without water.

PS If Paul Doherty came up with the arsenic theory, he was doing so in his capacity as a novelist, so was looking for a sensational angle for his novel.

[AdamKvanta]

Thanks for this. I haven't followed up all the links, but I think there are a few things that are worth considering.

1/ Was Alexander actually poisoned? The poisoning theory only arose about 5 years after Alexander's death when the various factions were slinging mud at each other.

2/ If he was poisoned, by whom? Who gained most? If it was planned by someone, nobody came out on top.

3/ There is a theory, a 'conspiracy of neglect' - I think the phrase is Bosworth's - that the top generals sort of let Alexander die because they didn't want to go traipsing off to Arabia and each had an eye on their own chances of succeeding.

4/ If there was arsenic in the water, would it have been in sufficient quantity to kill someone? A river that lethal would have killed off every man, fish and animal and plant that came near it. There are plenty of rivers that contain dissolved chemicals, that appear to be coloured or coat deposits in limescale but they are drinkable.

5/ Renault suggested that Alexander may have been in a deep coma when he was pronounced dead and could have survived for a couple more days. Three days is about the limit without water.

PS If Paul Doherty came up with the arsenic theory, he was doing so in his capacity as a novelist, so was looking for a sensational angle for his novel.

Thank you for these points, I'll try to address them.

1/ Why poisoning theory was suppressed for 5 years? Diodorus wrote:

After Alexander's death, Antipater held the supreme authority in Europe and then his son Casander took over the kingdom, so that many historians did not dare write about the drug.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... held%20the

2/ If he was poisoned, by whom? I just repeat here what I cited in my first post: "It was allegedly Alexander’s cupbearer, Iollas (or Iolaus), who poisoned the wine, on the instructions of his father Antipater and his brother Cassander. Following bitter disagreements with Alexander’s mother Olympias, Antipater was threatened with replacement as regent of Macedonia, and fearing for his life, decided on a preemptive strike against the king."

3/ There are indeed many theories. Most of them can be seen through the links at the beginning of my first post (general overview).

4/ How poisonous was Styx River? Again, I will just repeat what I cited before: "The first-century natural philosopher Pliny, wrote that drinking its water caused immediate death." Of course, this poisonous water was then diluted in wine so it was weaker for Alexander.

5/ Alexander may have been in a coma but the ancient sources are quite specific. As I already wrote in my first post: "It was the seventh day since the king's body had been lying in its coffin... (...) ...those who had entered the room saw it corrupted by no decay, nor even by the slightest discoloration."

I will also quote Plutarch here:

and it is no slight evidence in their favour that during the dissensions of Alexander's commanders, which lasted many days, his body, although it lay without special care in places that were moist and stifling, showed no sign of such a destructive influence, but remained pure and fresh.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/ ... his%20body

[Alexias]

Thanks for your reply.

The statement you quote from Diodorus about Antipater being in control of Greece is a rationalisation on Diodorus's part. Antipater was faced with considerable rebellion when news of Alexander's death reached Greece and spent the next couple of years fighting the Lamian War - plenty of time for his enemies to disperse the poisoning theory against him. He was also not in total control of the Greek cities of Asia Minor and the islands such as Rhodes. Diodorus gives an account of Alexander's death by illness, then, before giving an account of the death by poisoning, states

Since some historians disagree about the death of Alexander, and state that this occurred in consequence of a draught of poison, it seems necessary for us to mention their account also.

Since this is an alternative version of Alexander's death, he is clearly not fully convinced by it. Nor are Arrian and Plutarch.

Arrian:

I am aware that many other particulars have been related by historians concerning Alexander’s death, and especially that poison was sent for him by Antipater, from the effects of which he died..... These statements I have recorded rather that I may not seem to be ignorant that they have been made, than because I consider them worthy of credence or even of narration.

Plutarch

Most writers, however, think that the story of the poisoning is altogether a fabrication; and it is no slight evidence in their favour that during the dissensions of Alexander's commanders, which lasted many days, his body, although it lay without special care in places that were moist and stifling, showed no sign of such a destructive influence, but remained pure and fresh.

These three are our principal sources for Alexander's life, and most modern historians agree that Alexander was not poisoned. Incidentally, Plutarch is saying that Alexander's body did not putrify precisely because it was not full of poison. Had it been full of poison, he is saying that it would have rapidly putrified.

There is also the question of Olympias and Craterus's reactions after Alexander's death. Olympias had long been Antipater's enemy and had removed to Epirus from Macedon. If Antipater had poisoned Alexander, we can be sure she would have been very vocal in her opposition to him. As it was, the poisoning theory did not arise until after Anitpater's death, although some historians believe it may have arisen within a couple of years after Alexander's death. The poisoning theory's principle aim was to discredit the rising threat of Cassander, which included traducing Antipater's memory. Olympias herself has been put forward as the originator of the poison story in her war against Cassander, as well as Antigonus and Perdiccas.

Craterus's reaction is also interesting. He was one of Alexander's most loyal supporters. If there was any suspicion that Antipater had poisoned Alexander, Craterus is unlikely to have allied with him and married his daughter Phila.

Similarly, the other generals such as Perdiccas and Ptolemy who were present at Alexander's death, would surely have united against Antipater if there had been any suggestion that Alexander had been poisoned on his orders. Nor would they have made him regent of the Kings and given them into his control. We also hear of no action being taken against Iollas or Cassander, who was probably in Babylon at the time, so clearly no one had any suspicion that Alexander was poisoned by them. You may say that they weren't aware that Alexander had been poisoned, but it seems unlikely that in an era when poisonings were a constant threat, no one could tell the difference between poison and a natural illness.

[AdamKvanta]

Thank you for your reply.

You made a really good point, that it is unlikely that the poison conspiracy was known during the life of Antipater. So, if nobody knew about it, there was nothing to suppress during Antipater's life and that was my mistake to suggest that. In fact, Plutarch explicitly mentioned that there were no suspicions first five years after Alexander's death:

And as for suspicions of poisoning, no one had any immediately, but five years afterwards, as we are told, upon information given, Olympias put many men to death, and scattered abroad the ashes of Iolas, alleging that he had administered the poison.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/ ... suspicions

But after that five years, it could have been suppressed by Antipater's son Casander. And this is not mentioned only by Diodorus. Quintus Curtius wrote:

Many believed that he had been slain by poison...

These tales, however much they were given credence, the power of those whom rumour had aspersed presently suppressed; for Antipater seized the rule of Macedonia and of Greece as well, then his son succeeded him, after all who were related to Alexander, even by a distant connexion, had been killed.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 07&seq=567

And also Justin wrote:

His friends reported that the cause of his disease was excess in drinking, but in reality it was a conspiracy, the infamy of which the power of his successors threw into the shade.
http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/ ... 20reported

These quotes also show that even though Plutarch and Arrian were skeptical about the poison conspiracy, Justin wasn't. And neither was Pliny the Elder whom I quoted in my first post. Diodorus and Quintus Curtius seem to be neutral. So I think it's fair to say they couldn't know what really happened. Plutarch and Arrian used as a source the "Royal Journal" (Ephemerides) but how could they know that it described real events? It could be propaganda to suppress any suspicion about poisoning.

"... most modern historians agree that Alexander was not poisoned. Incidentally, Plutarch is saying that Alexander's body did not putrify precisely because it was not full of poison. Had it been full of poison, he is saying that it would have rapidly putrified."

How do most modern historians explain the good body preservation after Alexander's death? Arsenic poisoning seems like a perfect explanation. And I don't think Plutarch could have known that there is a poison that can preserve a body after death, so his statement is actually an argument for the arsenic hypothesis.

"You may say that they weren't aware that Alexander had been poisoned, but it seems unlikely that in an era when poisonings were a constant threat, no one could tell the difference between poison and a natural illness."

And what's the difference between poison and natural illness? Is there only one poison or only one natural illness? I mean, how could they be sure about any illness in the 4th century BC? Moreover, the wine was presumably tasted by a cup-bearer before Alexander drank it, so why would anyone have suspicions about poisoned wine? Maybe they just thought that Alexander drank too much wine. I just repeat the quote from Justin:

His friends reported that the cause of his disease was excess in drinking, but in reality it was a conspiracy, the infamy of which the power of his successors threw into the shade. ... Philippus and Iollas, who used to taste and mix the king’s drink, had the poison ready in cold water, which they put into the drink after it had been tasted.
http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/ ... 20reported

So I think the conspiracy was revealed only five years after Alexander's death, around the time of Antipater's death.

[Alexias]

Hi Adam,

I am not sure what is going on here, but I have approved a post from you this morning. I assumed it was a reply to my post of yesterday. However you appear to have edited your original post. This is only going to lead to confusion as I think you have substantially altered your original post. My subsequent posts will not make any sense to someone reading the thread, and I don't know how to reply as I don't know what you have changed. Is there any way you can highlight what you have changed? Or maybe repost it sequentially?

Thanks

PS New members' posts are moderated to deter spammers.

[dean]

Hi,
This topic has inevitably been touched on numerous times.

First topic of poisoning, I read that Theophrastus had written about stryccnine, its uses and how its effectiveness could be over several days and with wine the taste could be disguised. With Alexander’s reaction to Cassander when he reacted angrily to his laughing about Persians prostrating themselves, this could have sowed some kind of seed of hatred.

Also, I think that it is significant that Hephaestion and Alexander both died in a similar way- heavy drinking and fever within a relatively short period between.

It is told one of the kings companions , Apollonius of Amphipolis, worrying about his future asked his brother if he should be worried that the king or his vizier might be included in any purge of officials,- Peithagorus who was a famous seer answered that he shouldn’t worry about neither Hephaestion nor Alexander for both would be removed from his path.
Malaria for me is the most convincing argument coupled with alcohol and serious injuries. just my fifty cents.
Best regards,
Dean.

[AdamKvanta]

Hi Adam,

I am not sure what is going on here, but I have approved a post from you this morning. I assumed it was a reply to my post of yesterday. However you appear to have edited your original post. This is only going to lead to confusion as I think you have substantially altered your original post. My subsequent posts will not make any sense to someone reading the thread, and I don't know how to reply as I don't know what you have changed. Is there any way you can highlight what you have changed? Or maybe repost it sequentially?

Thanks

PS New members' posts are moderated to deter spammers.

Hi,
I'm sorry for the confusion. In my original post, I only changed one link for Arrian, Anabasis, 7.24-7.27 because the previous one didn't contain the whole passage about Alexander's death. Nothing else. Later that day I posted a regular reply to your post. I don't know why you think that I have substantially altered my original post. I never do that but sometimes I edit my previous posts when I see a typo or a bad link. However, I admit that I don't have experience with moderated forums so please tell me if I do something wrong.

[Alexias]

Hi Adam, no problem, thank you. Your original post just looked considerably longer than I remembered. I will answer your second post when I have a little more time. Thanks again.