pothos.org

Demos wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:25 am Hey, I'm obviously new here, so I thought I'd ask something. Although Arrian and Plutarch are certainly two of our best sources on Alexander, do they manipulate Alexanders histories to make them more roman? For example, do they accentuate tellings of Alexanders leadership or bravery in order to model roman values? If so, what are some examples or how can we combat this from a reliability perspective.
Thanks -

Interesting question. Both Plutarch and Arrian wrote with two different purposes. Both also wrote under what is known as the "second sophistic".

Plutarch wrote, as he famously declares in his Alexander, "lives , not history". Plutarch, then, is writing a more biographical account; one more interested in the virtues and vices of his subjects and to highlight their achievements (or lack thereof) framed via a moralistic/philosophical lens. In this regard, he pairs those lives and so we have, for example, Pyrrhos paired with Marius: both who reached and failed; both who did not realise what they had when they had it, so to speak.

Arrain, with his Annabasis Alexandrou, wrote to set a record straight. As the "new Xenophon" he would portray the real Alexander and correct some of what he considered nonsense about Alexander which had accreted to his subject. Trained in philosophy, he also made judgements about his subject, though many of those are framed in an exculpatory fashion due to his admiration of his subject.

As noted, both wrote under the second sophistic. This saw a re-flourishing of classical Greek culture; more aptly a "reaction" of sorts against the sublimation of that culture and history under the high Roman Empire. Greek philosophy and history were to be emphasised especially its martial past and heroes. There is a remark by Plutarch, if I recall correctly, bemoaning the fact that Greece cold not produce such a hero in his day. I cannot for the life of me call the reference from memory though.

Arrain, then, wanted to show the "real" Alexander and did so via his two trusted and most "reliable" sources: Aristobulous and Ptolemy Soter (this did not exclude embellishment or exaggeration). In this respect I do not think, nor do I see, Arrian "Romanising" Alexander. This is more so with Plutarch. His lives paired the great Greek statesmen and generals with Roman counterparts to show that Greece lacked nothing in comparison to the current ruler of the oikoumene. Thus "Romanising" Alexander would serve to undermine that I'd think.

In this regard, it is be sorely mourned that the lives of Scipio Africanus (the Elder) and Empameinondas did not survive the vagaries of outrageous source preservation. One might say the same, with feeling, for Arrain's "Events after Alexander"