Alexandrias so Called Drinking.Cassander Propoganda

[alejandro]

You have to remember, however, that writers have their own agendas, and many times their writings are vitiated by them. Thus Plutarch tries to justify each and every one of AlexanderGÇÖs actions because he intends to use him as a role-model. Curtius, on the other hand, is usually vilified because of his fondness for gossip. Arrian, based on PtolemyGÇÖs memoirs, is said to overrate the latterGÇÖs prowess and to play down PerdikkasGÇÖ. Along these lines, it is important to notice that, just maybe, a source is much more important because of what it doesnGÇÖt say, than because of what it does say. Is the lack of explicit mentions of heavy drinking by Alexander proof that he didnGÇÖt overindulge on it? What about the absence of explicit references to sexual relationships with Bagoas? Or about his possible participation in PhilipGÇÖs murder? Etc, etc.Also, I strongly believe in the phrase: GÇ£history is written by the victorsGÇ¥ (or something along these lines, I donGÇÖt know the exact wording in English). Thus, Ptolemy, Aristoboulos, Nearchos and Hieronymos of Kardia, whose fortunes are positively correlated with AlexanderGÇÖs are usually benign (exception may be Chares?), while later writers (usually Roman citizens using AlexanderGÇÖs story to deliver an ethically-laden message, often against current Caesars acting tyrannically) will stress his defects.My guide is usually GÇ£common senseGÇ¥ (though it is said it is the less common among people!). Basically, I try to think what incentives Alexander and the people around him have to undertake certain actions, and then try to factor in the sourceGÇÖs bias, in order to get the GÇ£underlying truthGÇ¥. Of course, it is an art and not a science, and leads to never ending debates, but I think itGÇÖs the only way to deal with it.Best,Alejandro