Alexander and his mania

[Dr YA Qureshi]

Dear colleagues,Warm regards. Many a scholar have postulated that there is a 'fine line between genius and insanity.' Well, we all know that Alexander was a genius, but was he also insane? There are some obvious accounts of when Alexander was suicidal, eg after Haphaestian's death, but this simply could be reactive depression or an adjustment disorder. I intend to chronicle Alexander's great briliances and his depressive episodes in an article, in an attempt to certify whether bipolar manic depression is a reasonable diagnosis to label him with (or whether he was just plain genius), in accordance with new medical/symptom criteria issued by the American Psychiatric Association guidlines.Hence, I would most gratefully appreciate any information or links anyone has on this topic which I can use as evidence or as references for this project. I would most appreciate both medical and historical sources.Thank you my friendsYassar

[jona]

In his book "The mask of command", the military historian John Keegan has stressed Alexander's theatrality. Personally, I had already been toying with the idea of a histrionic personality, so Keeagan and more or less agreed. Alexander's behavior after the death of Hephaestion is indeed a case in point; there's always an element of show.On the other hand, this element of show is quite common in ancient history. Perhaps we must not overstress this idea.Jona

[Linda]

Agreed - he could not have functioned the way he did if he had bipolar depression. There is also the possibility that his histrionics had also a political aim eg the mourning for Cleitus. He was obviously and extremely creative person, and these people tend to be subject to more mood swings - there is a lot of research on that - from the bonkers like Van Gogh, to the highly strung, like, say, T.E.Lawrence.I don't think his mourning for Hephaestion was extravagent - in emotional terms. What was remarked on was how rich and powerful he had become, that he could express his grief in such a god-like way. He was suffering, and so the empire felt it. It was all about *him*, in spite of his speech to veterens - it always has a hollow ring to me...

[marcus]

We should also remember that in many cultures overt expressions of grief are the norm. It can seem OTT to those of us in the reserved West.I can recall, particularly, the outpourings at the deaths of Ayatollah Khomeini, and Indira Gandhi, where both funerals were mass affairs of completely distraught crowds.Admittedly Alexander's reactions to the deaths of Kleitos and Hephaistion were those of one man to the deaths of his close friends; but the principle is the same.I think Kleitos' death needs to be looked at differently from that of Hephaistion, though. Alexander killed Kleitos, and his overt reaction was designed to demonstrate his remorse, as well as grief. It would have been clear that he really did regret what he had done, which was probably far more important than showing how sad he was at the man's death.All the bestMarcus

[Linda]

Remorse - yes, good point. Even in our impersonal judicial process, a defendant is likely to be treated more leniently (if guilty) if they are sorry. But it would be expected of him, as he was The Law, in effect..

[marcus]

I'm not sure I agree with your point that it was expected of him because he was "The Law".After all, the argument that he was "The Law" was that offered by Anaxarchus - and it was that which helped to bring him 'back'. So his 'legal status', as it were, was what made remorse unnecessary.All the bestMarcus

[jan]

I am going to be very frank about this subject as it sounds so much like a discussion of William Blake. How on earth can anyone in today's time make a psychological diagnosis of a subject when not present? All you have to go by is hearsay evidence, which would not hold up even in a court of law. I really think that Alexander is genius and more than that. Genius is something that few know enough about to discuss, and deity is even more difficult. I am convinced that Alexander is deity, and who can psychoanalyze deity.These stories which abound about him are stories, told apparently by friends and foe alike. They are only stories, and unless you have the subject first hand no psychobabble will ever be convincing of anything but of one's own projection, not even analysis.If I have offended, it may be that I mean to offend. I certainly think this an exercise in futility!

[susan]

JanI can't believe that you really mean that you want to offend Dr Qureishi, do you ? We've always tried to keep this a polite forum. You have your views on Alexander's deity that others may disagree with, but I don't think that anyone replies to you with the aim of offending you, so it would be nice if you can extend the same principle to others. RegardsSusan

[Dr YA Qureshi]

Dear colleaguesWarm regards. Ms Fauble you are right -it is impossible to analyse someone's psyche if they are dead. What you read about Alexander the man, 'his '
passion, his pothos' is all heresay by your account. I wasn't there to see him grow up, and I wasn't there at his battles. And the people who were there, well their books got lost. We only know about Alexander because of a handful of monuments and due to second hand historical accounts. I'm afraid we have no account of Alexander's life exactly as it happened. But, historian's pull together the pieces of the jigsaw using all data available and produce a plausible theory (not fact). As a doctor, I take patient's symptoms and suggest a diagnosis. Hence I wish to make a diagnosis based on historical data on Alexander. Now I know already that info on Alexander is theory at best, so obviously any diagnosis is not fact, and is theory at best. Whether he was genius or manic is beside the point, as we'll never know for certain. But just as some suggest that he was homosexuual without having seen him have sex, I may wish to suggest that he was manic without analysing him in person.Thats what historians do!Yassar
PS Tmrw I will post the new Mania guidlines with some examples of how Alexander may fit in with this diagnosis.

[Nax]

Bottom line: ALL the things said about Alexander are opinions- not one single person on this site knows Alexander better than any other person, no one has "special" insight tho I'll admit some have studied the guy a heck of a lot more than others and the profs here are well-respected in their fields... so I'll hear em out.

So someone saying Alexander was a manic-depressive and saying info will be provided- that's ok with me. Let's hear it out..

[susan]

YassarWe'll look forward to your posting.Susan

[jona]

I will follow this with interest. The twentieth century has produced two Alexander paradigms - that of the glorious conqueror who wanted the best for mankind (Tarn) and that of the dictator (Badian). It seems that we are now seeing the rise of "Alexander the psychopath" (Worthington, Cartledge). The trouble with this approach is, in my view, that it is hard to write a real diagnosis.Personally, I was hoping for "Alexander the failing transcultural leader" (the theme of my book), but if (if!) we can agree upon a diagnosis, things become really different.Jona

[marcus]

Slightely facetiously: there was an article on the Sky News website yesterday, talking about psychopaths in the workplace. It would be interesting to measure what we know of Alexander against the behaviours that the article set out.What I don't know is whether the traits listed in the article are medical definitions of psychopathic behaviour, however, so I'm not prepared to put too much store by it!All the bestMarcus

[jona]

One of the attempts to analyze Alexander according to modern psychiatric standards is the book by Manfred Kets de Vries we recently discussed because Nick was able to prove it had used texts of pothos.org.MKdV argues that Alexander suffered from cyclothemia and megalomania. The less said about this book, the better, because MKdV needs Alexander's childhood memories to make his case, and believes everything written in the relevant parts of Plutarch's biography. Indeed, another attempt that is not to be taken too seriously.It should be noted, however, that Alexander's contemporaries also had a feeling there was something "wrong" with the king. Aristobulus had good reasons to introduce the pothos concept, with its connotation of longing for death and glory (http://www.livius.org/pn-po/pothos/pothos.html ). Yassar Qureshi, MKdV and Aristobulus seem to be trying to say something similar.Jona

[marcus]

Agreed.To some extent I'm prepared to accept that conclusions can be drawn, so long as they are drawn from actions and behaviour, rather than trying to delve into the person's mind.Ultimately, however, all this would prove is that Alexander demonstrated characteristic behaviours of x or y, which does not take the place of a proper psychological analysis.It's an interesting game to play, but of little real value.All the bestMarcus