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/
https://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/bit ... t_1996.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/2512445/Some_n ... _the_Great

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
https://philipharland.com/Courses/Readi ... df#page=83

Liber de Morte (Metz Epitome)
http://web.archive.org/web/200705200912 ... /liber.asp

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

Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, XIX. 11.8
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... %20Nicanor

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

Aelian, Various History, book XII. chap. LXIV.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/aelian/va ... tml#chap64

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

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, X. 44 (434)
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... 0drank%20a

Livy, From the Founding of the City, 8.3.7
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/From_the ... the%20time

Polyaenus, Stratagems, 4.3.31
http://www.attalus.org/translate/polyae ... 0Cossaeans

Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds and Sayings, 1.7 ext 2
https://www.attalus.org/translate/valer ... 0king%20of

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.

[AdamKvanta]

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.

Thank you for your reply, Dean.

About strychnine hypothesis:

Strychnine was first suggested by R.D. Milnes, citing Theophrastus (History of Plants 9.11.5-6).
https://www.academia.edu/27158916/Alexa ... able_Death

Theophrastus wrote this in History of Plants, 9.11.5:

Of the various plants called strykhnos. As to strykhnos again and tithymallos (spurge) there is in either case more than one form of the plant denoted by the name. Of the plants called strykhnos one induces sleep, the other (thorn-apple) causes madness.
https://topostext.org/work/242#:~:text= ... 0strykhnos

However, Theophrastus almost certainly didn't write about modern-day strychnine (nux vomica) but about thorn apple (datura stramonium).

Strychnine comes from the nux vomica plant discovered in the seventeenth century - it was unknown to the ancients.
...
Thorn apple. Datura stramonium. ... Dioscorides refers to this plant as strychnos manicus, which should not be confused with modern day strychnine.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... cient_Rome

About malaria hypothesis:

Malaria was first proposed by a French physician in 1878 and has been promoted by several recent historians. ... But if any of these infectious diseases was the culprit, it seems likely that other people in Babylon would have been struck with similar symptoms. According to the detailed historical accounts, Alexander was the only one to fall ill, a fact that could point to poisoning.
https://www.academia.edu/27158916/Alexa ... able_Death

Also, the probability that Alexander died from malaria is very low, in my opinion. Most malaria in Iraq/present-day Babylon is due to P. vivax and a systematic meta-analysis of 77 studies with reported severe vivax malaria cases described a case fatality rate for severe malaria of only 0.3%. P. vivax malaria morbidity is caused mainly by anaemia, particularly in pregnant women and children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9078372/
https://www.vivaxmalaria.org/p-vivax-ma ... -morbidity

[Alexias]

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying.

The sources that we have were obviously written hundreds of years after Alexander's time and they were reporting on the sources they had, each of which had their own agenda. In some cases this was to blacken others' names, promote their own claims to be Alexander's true successor and in some cases it was just because the poisoning theory made for a better story than that he just got sick and died. There must have been a tendency too for people to believe that Alexander, who had overcome so much, should have finally been conquered by disease: someone must have been responsible.

In order to decide if Alexander was poisoned, I believe you need to consider motives. Antipater had shown exceptional loyalty to Alexander throughout his rein. He may not have relished the prospect of giving up his regency to Craterus and travelling out to Babylon, but would he have risked destabilising the whole world, even supposing it could have been accomplished successfully at such a distance. If he sent Cassander and Iollas to do it, he could have been condemning them to death and committing himself to war with Alexander if they failed. He would also lose the enormous sources of wealth that were pouring into Macedonia and Greece, and like it or not, all of these men were highly mercenary and acquiring wealth was high on their agenda.

So, did Cassander act on his own and poison Alexander? He obviously disliked Alexander intensely, but so did a lot of others in all likelihood. What was he going to achieve in acting on purely personal motives? Chaos is the answer. He had no power base in Babylon with which to challenge the other generals for control, no official position, no control of the army or its loyalties, and no control of the Treasury. He makes no appearance in the source in the immediate aftermath of Alexander's death, the Romance saying he fled to the mountains, so he may not even have been in Babylon when Alexander died.

Anyway, I could go on but I do not believe Alexander was poisoned. There was nobody ready to take control, which a deliberate and planned act like poisoning would seem to indicate, so this seems to rule out the generals in Babylon. Was it some comparative nobody like Apollodorus the governor of Babylon mentioned by dean, who was fearful of Alexander's satrapal purge. Heckel says in Who's Who

The prophecies
are clearly inventions ex post facto but Apollodorus’ concerns will have been real

The question is, would he have been able to infiltrate Alexander's inner circle to administer the poison?

Heckel believes that one Holkias (Holcias) was the author of the pamphlet "The last days and testament of Alexander the Great" which was the origin of the poisoning theory. He was a soldier who rebelled against Antigonus, but was pardoned on condition he retired to Macedonia and took no further military action. Heckel says he was an intimate of Alexander, probably having been brought up with him and

but after Antipater’s death Holcias became a supporter of Polyperchon, for whom he may have composed the Last Days and Testament as part of the propaganda war against Cassander

[AdamKvanta]

Hi, thank you for your reply.

I still think the arsenic hypothesis is the best explanation for Alexander's death. It best explains the good body preservation after his death and the fact that ancient historians mentioned the Styx River as the source of the poison. This hypothesis doesn't require that the poison conspiracy was done by Antipater but I think it is the most reasonable explanation.

In order to decide if Alexander was poisoned, I believe you need to consider motives. Antipater had shown exceptional loyalty to Alexander throughout his rein. He may not have relished the prospect of giving up his regency to Craterus and travelling out to Babylon, but would he have risked destabilising the whole world, even supposing it could have been accomplished successfully at such a distance. If he sent Cassander and Iollas to do it, he could have been condemning them to death and committing himself to war with Alexander if they failed. He would also lose the enormous sources of wealth that were pouring into Macedonia and Greece, and like it or not, all of these men were highly mercenary and acquiring wealth was high on their agenda.

Interesting perspective. I think Antipater wanted to stay in power in Macedonia and since he was about 75 years old at that time, he didn't want to go anywhere else. I think the easiest solution for him was to assassinate Alexander and then appoint himself as the supreme regent of all Alexander's empire. And he actually did that a few years later in the treaty of Triparadisus (321 BC). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipater

What about the relationship between Alexander and Antipater? Antipater might have been loyal to Alexander but later their relationship deteriorated. The ancient sources are unanimous about this so I have no reason to doubt that. I will quote them here, maybe someone will find it useful.

Diodorus:

They say that Antipater, who had been left by Alexander as viceroy in Europe, was at variance with the king's mother Olympias. At first he did not take her seriously because Alexander did not heed her complaints against him, but later, as their enmity kept growing and the king showed an anxiety to gratify his mother in everything out of piety, Antipater gave many indications of his disaffection. This was bad enough, but the murder of Parmenion and Philotas struck terror into Antipater as into all of Alexander's Friends, so by the hand of his own son, who was the king's wine-pourer, he administered poison to the king.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... 0Antipater

Quintus Curtius:

A letter was also written to Antipater with orders that honour should be paid to the discharged veterans, so that whenever games and athletic contests were celebrated, they should witness them from the first rows of seats and with garlands on their heads, and that the ungrown children of those who should have died should inherit their fathers' pay. He appointed Craterus governor of Macedonia and the adjacent districts, but gave orders that Antipater & should come to the king with a reinforcement of younger Macedonians. For he feared that through the discord between the governor and Olympias some grave calamity might be suffered. For his mother had sent many letters to Alexander, and Antipater many, in which they charged each other with numerous arrogant and hostile acts which tended to the disgrace or the impairment of the royal majesty. For after the rumour of the king's death, which had been falsely spread abroad, had seeped into Macedonia, his mother and his sister Cleopatra had set on foot a revolution, and his sister had taken possession of her father's kingdom, and Olympias, of Epirus.

It happened that while letters of that kind were being delivered, Hephaestion, who was wont to be regarded as the confidant of all the king's secrets, was at the same time looking over the letters that had been opened by Alexander. And the king did not prevent him, but taking off his ring from his finger, he laid it upon the reader's lips, signifying that nothing of what had been written should be communicated to others. But he is said to have railed at them both, and, angered by the insolence of his mother, to have said that she for a lodging of ten months which she had furnished him in her womb was exacting a heavy price, but that he had held Antipater in suspicion, on the ground that having gained a victory over the Spartans he was growing arrogant, and because of power already prolonged over so many years had risen above the conduct becoming a prefect. Accordingly, when Antipater's dignity and uprightness were praised by certain men, Alexander replied that he seemed white on the outside, but if he was looked into deeply, he was all purple. Nevertheless he concealed his suspicion and showed no clearer indication of an alienated feeling. Yet very many believed that Antipater, thinking that he was summoned for punishment, was responsible by disloyal plots for the death of the king, which followed shortly afterward.

...

Many believed that he had been slain by poison; that a son of Antipater among his attendants, Iollas by name, had administered it by his father's command. Certain it is that Alexander was often heard to say that Antipater took upon himself the state of a king, that he was more powerful than a prefect ought to be, and that he was puffed up by the rich spoil and fame of his Spartan victory while he claimed as his own all that the king had given him. They also believed that Craterus had been sent to kill [him*] with a troop of the old soldiers.
[* my translation based on latin original]
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 07&seq=511
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 07&seq=567

Justin:

Of those that were sent home Craterus was appointed leader, and commissioned to take the government of Macedonia in the room of Antipater, whom he sent for, with a body of recruits, to supply the place of Craterus. Pay was allowed to those that went home, as if they had been still in the service. In the course of those proceedings, Hephaestion, one of his friends, died; a man who was a great favourite with Alexander, at first on account of his personal qualities in youth, and afterwards from his servility.

...

The author of this conspiracy was Antipater, who, seeing that his dearest friends were put to death, that Alexander Lyncestes, his son-in-law, was cut off, and that he himself, after his important services in Greece, was not so much liked by the king as envied by him, and was also persecuted with various charges by his mother Olympias; reflecting, too, on the severe penalties inflicted, a few days before, on the governors of the conquered nations, and hence imagining that he was sent for from Macedonia, not to share in the war, but to suffer punishment, secretly, in order to be beforehand with Alexander, furnished his son Cassander with poison, who, with his brothers Philippus and Iollas, was accustomed to attend on the king at table.
http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/ ... ans12.html

Plutarch:

After Philotas had been put to death, Alexander sent at once into Media and dispatched Parmenio also, a man whose achievements with Philip had been many, and who was the only one of Alexander's older friends, or the principal one, to urge his crossing into Asia, and who, of the three sons that were his, had seen two killed on the expedition before this, and was now put to death along with the third.

These actions made Alexander an object of fear to many of his friends, and particularly to Antipater, who sent secretly to the Aetolians and entered into an alliance with them. For the Aetolians also were in fear of Alexander, because they had destroyed the city of the Oeniadae, and because Alexander, on learning of it, had said that it would not be the sons of the Oeniadae, but he himself who would punish the Aetolians.

...

On hearing of this, Alexander put the man out of the way, as the seers directed; but he began to be low-spirited, and was distrustful now of the favour of Heaven and suspicious of his friends. He was particularly afraid of Antipater and of his sons, one of whom, Iolas, was his chief cupbearer; the other, Cassander, had only recently come to Babylon, and when he saw some Barbarians doing obeisance to Alexander, since he had been reared as a Greek and had never seen such a sight as this before, he laughed boisterously. But Alexander was enraged, and clutching him fiercely by the hair with both hands dashed his head against the wall. And at another time, when Cassander would have said something in opposition to those who were bringing charges against Antipater, Alexander interrupted him, saying: "What meanest thou? Would men come so long a journey if they had not been wronged and were making false charges?" And when Cassander declared that this very fact of their coming a long distance away from the proofs showed that they were making false charges, Alexander burst out laughing and said: "These are the famous sophisms of Aristotle's disciples for either side of the question; but ye shall rue the day if it appear that ye have done these men even a slight wrong." And in general, as we are told, Cassander's spirit was deeply penetrated and imbued with a dreadful fear of Alexander, so that many years afterwards, when he was now king of Macedonia and master of Greece, as he was walking about and surveying the statues at Delphi, the sight of an image of Alexander smote him suddenly with a shuddering and trembling from which he could scarcely recover, and made his head swim.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/ ... had%20been
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/ ... 0put%20the

Arrian:

He ordered Craterus to lead these men back, and when he had done so, to take upon himself the government of Macedonia, Thrace, and Thessaly, and to preside over the freedom of the Greeks. He also ordered Antipater to bring to him the Macedonians of manly age as successors to those who were being sent back. He despatched Polysperchon also with Craterus, as his second in command, so that if any mishap befell Craterus on the march (for he was sending him back on account of the weakness of his health), those who were going might not be in need of a general. A secret report was also going about that Alexander was now overcome by his mother's accusations of Antipater, and that he wished to remove him from Macedonia. This report was current among those who thought that royal actions are more worthy of honour in proportion to their secrecy, and who were inclined to impute what is worthy of belief to a bad motive rather than to attribute it to the real one; a course to which they were led by appearances and their own depravity. But probably this sending for Antipater was not designed for his dishonour, but rather to prevent any unpleasant consequences to Antipater and Olympias from their quarrel which he might not himself be able to rectify. For they were incessantly writing to Alexander, the former saying that the arrogance, acerbity, and meddlesomeness of Olympias was exceedingly unbecoming to the king's mother; insomuch that Alexander was related to have used the following remark in reference to the reports which he received about his mother:—that she was exacting from him a heavy house-rent for the ten months. The queen wrote that Antipater was overweeningly insolent in his pretensions and in the service of his court, no longer remembering the one who had appointed him, but claiming to win and hold the first rank among the Macedonians and Greeks. These slanderous reports about Antipater appeared to have more weight with Alexander, since they were more formidable in regard to the regal dignity. However no overt act or word of the king was reported, from which any one could infer that Antipater was in any way less in favour with him than before.

...

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. It is also asserted that the poison was procured for Antipater by Aristotle, who was now afraid of Alexander on account of Callisthenes. It is said to have been conveyed by Cassander, the son of Antipater, some recording that he conveyed it in the hoof of a mule, and that his younger brother Iollas gave it to the king. For this man was the royal cup-bearer, and he happened to have received some affront from Alexander a short time before his death.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anab ... hapter_XII
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anab ... pter_XXVII