Why is Arrian considered most reliable?

[bob]

why is Arrian considered by scholars the most accurate? Because he is the longest account? Of the big four (the big five minus Justin) he is the last to write. Reading GreenGÇÖs book, he quotes and references Diodorus the most, especially when it comes to the Granicus (I am not talking about his appendix). Diodorus and Plutarch, the first two biographers, also were historians, who wrote a great deal of history. Arrian, wrote just an anabasis of Alexander, that was it (unless I am missing something). Of the three, Arrian, Plutarch, and Diodorus, Plutarch and Diodorus are real historians and are experienced for their whole lives at writing histories, and they wrote first.
Most scholars rate Justin the must unreliable, followed by QCR, yet our roman historian also strongly agrees with Diodorus more than Arrian does. To me, I often wonder if Arrian is the least reliable. Love to get your take on that.
Peace Bob

[bob]

I have Plutarch and Diodorus online addresses. Does anyone have Arrian and QCR online? It is sure nice to read at work during my lunch hour. Thanks

[Efstathios]

Arrian is considered reliable because:A)He is the oldest complete source that we have .His books are mainly a rework of Ptolemy's biography of Alexander
and he used some other sources too like that of Aristoboulos,and also Callistenes',Nearchus',Onesicritus.
B) Because of his writing style.Arrian mainly accounts the events,and only at some little parts he writes his oppinion.(p.e about the Parmenion's assasination).

There has been some mumbling about Ptolemy's book because he was very close to Alexander and some people think that he might have not been very objective.Maybe,but judging by Arrian's books and his use of Ptolemy's book,Ptolemy must have written accounting the events mostly as Arrian did.And because he was a general his descriptions of the battles and marches and some other events are valuable.He saw things first person,not like other people like Onesicritus who were soldiers and heard some things as rumors maybe in the camp.That's why Arrian mainly uses Ptolemy as his source.

[amyntoros]

Hi Bob I havenGÇÖt yet found Curtius online (believe me, IGÇÖve searched long and hard for him!) however, a translation of Arrian is on SusanGÇÖs site: http://websfor.org/alexander/home/home.asp **** Arrian, wrote just an anabasis of Alexander, that was it (unless I am missing something)***** Mmm, yes you are missing something GÇô but then, so are we all! The Bibliotheca of Photius lists the following books by Arrian (and tells us: GÇ£It is said that he was also the author of other works, but they have not come into my hands.GÇ¥) Arrian: Parthica (History of Parthia) in seventeen books); Bithynica in eight books, containing a detailed account of the mythical and general history of Bithynia; Discourses of Epictetus; Indica; Campaigns of Alexander the Great ; Events after the Death of Alexander; Bithynica, The Acts of Dion and Timoleon. Only the Anabasis, Indica, and the lovely Discourses of Eptictetus are extant. To show some of what we have lost, here is PhotiusGÇÖ summary of the Events after the death of Alexander, extracted from http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_02preface.htm
GÇ£The same author also wrote an account of what took place after Alexander's death, in ten books. He describes the sedition in the army, the proclamation of Arrhidaeus (the son of Alexander's father, Philip, by a Thracian woman named Philinna) on condition that Roxana's child, when born, if it were a son, should share the throne with him. Arrhidaeus was then again proclaimed under the name of Philip. A quarrel broke out between the infantry and the cavalry. The chief and most influential commanders of the latter were Perdiccas the son of Orontes, Leonnatus the son of Anthes, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, Lysimachus the son of Agathocles, Aristonus the son of Pisaeus, Pithon the son of Crateuas, Seleucus the son of Antiochus, and Eumenes of Cardia. Meleager was in command of the infantry. Communications passed between them, and at length it was agreed between the infantry, who had already chosen a king, and the cavalry, that Antipater should be general of the forces in Europe; that Craterus should look after the kingdom of Arrhidaeus ; that Perdiccas should be chiliarch of the troops which h

[amyntoros]

(Continued) . . . that Perdiccas should be chiliarch of the troops which had been under the command of Hephaestion, which amounted to entrusting him with the care of the whole empire ; and that Meleager should be his lieutenant. Perdiccas, under the pretence of reviewing the army, seized the ringleaders of the disturbance, and put them to death in the presence of Arrhidaeus, as if he had ordered it. This struck terror into the rest, and Meleager was soon afterwards murdered. After this Perdiccas became the object of general suspicion and himself suspected everybody. Nevertheless, he made appointments to the governorships of the different provinces, as if Arrhidaeus had ordered him. Ptolemy, son of Lagus, was appointed governor of Egypt and Libya, and of that part of Arabia that borders upon Egypt, with Cleomenes, formerly governor of Egypt under Alexander, as his deputy. The part of Syria adjacent was given to Laomedon; Cilicia to Philotas; Media to Pithon ; Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and the country on the shore of the Euxine as far as Trapezus (a Greek colony from Sinope), to Eumenes of Cardia; Pamphylia, Lycia, and greater Phrygia to Antigonus ; Caria to Cassander; Lydia to Menander; Phrygia on the Hellespont to Leonnatus. This Phrygia had formerly been given by Alexander to a certain Galas and subsequently handed over to Demarchus. Such was the distribution of Asia.GÇ¥Best regards,Amyntoros

[marcus]

A lot of work has been done on the other authors, and the current feeling is that the others are more reliable than was earlier thought. I think most people would still consider Arrian to be the most reliable, but people are nowadays not as dismissive of the others.One good example is over the Bactrian campaign - if you read Holt, and the excellent article by AB Bosworth ("A missing year in the history of Alexander the Great"), it is very likely that for the chronology of the 329-327BC period Arrian is, in fact, less reliable/accurate than the vulgate sources.ATbMarcus

[amyntoros]

Hi Marcus, Another example of the reliability of parts of Arrian being questioned GÇô from Page 12 of Andrew StewartGÇÖs Faces of Power.(On Ptolemy) GÇ£His narrative of the battle of the Issos, where he was only a junior staff officer, was apparently quite schematic and slanderously portrayed Darius as a coward, while that of the Hydaspes was much fuller and clearer but muddled the Macedonian dispositions at the start.GÇ¥ GÇ£. . . Furthermore, the Vulgate account of the battles of the Issos and Gaugamela is now judged the most reliable we have. . . . Kleitarchos may have been a more balanced historian than many and was certainly no abject flatterer.GÇ¥StewartGÇÖs footnotes for the last remark are: Devine 1985 GÇô Grand Tactics at the Battle of Issus, AncW 12: 39-59; Devine 1986 GÇô The Battle of Gaugamela: A Tactical and Source-Critical Study, AncW 13: 87-115; Hamilton 1973 (for the reassessment of Cleitarchus) GÇô Alexander the Great, Page 17; and Bosworth 1988 GÇô From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation, Pages 67-72.Best regards,Amyntoros

[bob]

Thanks so much!

[jim]

ARRIAN sources are considered most reliable because it is composed of more primary source based on more direct witness of his campaign via Ptolemy then the others you referenced.http://www.dragonrest.net/histories/alexander.html

[bob]

Thanks Jim: However, lets look at a part of that website's claims: Of all of these five, it is Arrian whose account is generally considered the best and most reliable. Arrian was an official of the Roman empire when he wrote his account of Alexander around 250 A.D. Arrian is the only one of the five who included the names of his sources and his reasons for choosing to rely upon them. Arrian's main sources were the memoirs written by Ptolemy, one of Alexander's generals, and the writings of Aristobulos, a Greek architect who travelled with Alexander and worked closely with him over many years. He also used works of Nearchus, who was Alexander's admiral and life-long friend." Okay, if the others did not list their sources, how do we know they did not use Ptolemy and the others? How can we verify Arrian's claims? Arrian also wrote so lote (c. 250 CE). Thus, how would he have access to those sources the others did not (unless of course the others had these sources too?)
Bob

[jim]

I am using the site to state why Arrian is CONSIDERED most realiable.Since ATG conquest was a military campaign ARRIAN as a Roman general would have insights into the military aspects.The reason way ARRIAN is considered the most accurate is because his writing pertain most directly to the military campaign based upon the sources the others relied upon.The writings of Curtius, Diodorus, and Justin are of dubious worth. All of these authors relied upon suspect sources for their works on Alexander despite the fact that good primary sources were still available to them. Justin's main source was a shadowy man named Trogus who had no love for Alexander.
Diodorus and Curtius are, respectively, the earliest writers on Alexander, having written their accounts in the first century A.D. However, their works are riddled with inaccuracies and folk tales. Each seems to have relied a great deal on another writer whose works are largely lost to us and who was named Cleitarchus. This man was thought to have been a contemporary of Alexander and a reliable source for many years, but writers such as Cicero and Strabo believed him to be dishonest. Much of the writings about Alexander that were based on the works of Cleitarchus are no longer deemed reliable by most historians.A consideration of the five extant ancient historians of Alexander the Great makes it quite clear that there is a tremendous amount of inconsistency in the writings about this great conqueror. It is from this confusion that all of the modern histories of Alexander have been drawn. It is no wonder that a figure about which there is such undying fascination would be subject to a new interpretation based on this same information innumerable times over the course of history. This constant re-evaluation of the same data has yielded three main portrayals of this enigmatic man.Since the time of Alexander's death in 323 B.C., the king has been portrayed variously as a murderous, rapacious, narcissistic megalomaniac, or as a charismatic, humanistic missionary determined to unify the races of the known world. A third common representation of Alexander's character is that he was a good person full of promise initially, but became a corrupt, power-mad tyrant once he had crossed into the Mid-East and tasted of the riches he found there.The depiction of Alexander as being unrelentingly awful was begun almost immediately upon his death. The Athenian educational establishment had no love for him and

[marcus]

Too much to answer and too little time, Bob!1. The 'vulgate' authors are read back to a common source by the similarities in their versions; it is fairly easy to see where they differ from Arrian.2. Just because the other writers had access to Ptolemy and Aristobulus, doesn't mean they felt the need to use them as sources - they probably weren't exciting enough for their needs. Don't forget that the ancients' views of sources, and indeed their reasons for writing in the first place, weren't necessarily the same as ours - Cleitarchus was a 'more exciting' source, so Cleitarchus was the source they used.3. Comparison with other writers, even those who made only passing mention, can also be used to identify Aristobulus or Ptolemy in Arrian's work. Also, whatever an ancient writer's reasons for choosing a particular source over another, I don't think there's a single instance of a writer claiming a source falsely.Sorry, rather quick and curt answers, but all I have time for at the moment.ATBMarcus

[Efstathios]

Correction: Arrian wrote his "Alexander's Anavasis" at around 150 a.d.And he was a greek.

[bob]

Thank you for those answers. I guess because I am used to tackling the alleged sources for the Law of Moses for one example, I am pretty skeptical to just accept anyone's claims. Maybe I should not be. I have recently read Diodorus, I don't recall him even mentioning his sources. As per Jim's comment on Alexander, as a human being I do find alexander to be a great military legend. But as a person who does value mankind, some of his actions I do not agree with. Slaughtering women and children for one. I understand we should not look at Alexander through modern eyes. But at times, we fail because well, we live in modern times. Alexander is still Great, despite some of his faults. He was Great, but was by no means perfect. Maybe Plutarch is right, his slaughtering of 7,000 Indians (as Plutarch says) was a stain on his career. What American president doens't have a stain? No great leader was perfect, but as a humanitarian, I sure hate any genocide anywhere. And well, if I was an ancient, I would make sure I did not tick Alexander off sealing my own fate. LASTLY I am not sure we can say with CERTAINTY what sources others used, or if they did or did not have Ptolemy. To me, until something can be proven with reasonable evidence, it would be better to say "I don't know for sure, but here is my opinion." It has been a bit since I read Arrian, but he does state his sources, and until I have reason not to believe Arrian, I must beleive him.

[marcus]

As far as the sources are concerned, as I said before, it is so unlikely that one of the ancient authors would falsely credit a source that it is perfectly acceptable to accept their accreditation. You're right about Diodorus - I don't think he ever does credit his sources; but there are sufficient similarities with the other vulgate authors that make identification of sources possible (although not easy - scholars have put in a lot of *very* hard work!). Have a look at the excellent work that Andrew Chugg is doing, using the extant sources to attempt a recreation of Cleitarchus.The other thing to bear in mind about Arrian is, of course, that Ptolemy and Aristobulus wrote with their own agendas, and wrote the history as they saw it. In schools we are encouraged nowadays not to teach 'primary' and 'secondary' sources, because children too easily fall into the trap of thinking that primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources. It is too easy to make the mistake of assuming that, because Ptolemy was on the expedition, that he was writing the most truthful account throughout.All the bestMarcus