Why is Arrian considered most reliable?

[jan]

Cannot answer your question, but the thing that fascinates me most about Arrian's reasoning is that he considers that Alexander is not at all known or famous so that he must write this history for him to become famous amongst the Romans. That says a lot to me.

[Taphoi]

Arrian used Ptolemy and Aristobulus as his main sources with some insertions from Nearchus and others. He is certainly no more reliable than they were. The rest of the tradition is strongly influenced by the lost work of Cleitarchus, "Concerning Alexander". The most annoying thing about Arrian is that he deliberately suppressed things he considered sensationalist or intrusive. For example, he evidently edited Bagoas out of his history, even though he was a key figure at Alexander's court, because he considered this relationship improper and unworthy of his hero. Arrian is in many ways the ancient world's equivalent of Tarn. He is the "Daily Telegraph" version of events (for those of you who understand UK newspapers).On the other hand Cleitarchus is the "Sun" newspaper version. He embraced sensationalism and his name was a byword for hyperbole in the ancient world. This made him an exciting read, which explains his popularity, but it also undermined his credibility with sober historians. It is clear that some of Cleitarchus' stories were badly distorted, but virtually all of them contained a grain of truth and he gave much more material on Alexander's personality than Arrian. Even the famous distortion about the visit of Thalestria, the Amazon Queen, is actually probably based on a factual visit of armed tribeswomen to Alexander's camp and Cleitarchus probably got it from Onesicritus, Alexander's helmsman.Whether you prefer Arrian or Cleitarchus depends on whether you object more strongly to having your history censored or sensationalised.Best wishes,
andrew

[amyntoros]

Hmmm, 'fraid not, Jan. What Arian says is that "other writers have given a variety of accounts of Alexander . . ." Also, "Anyone who is surprised that with so many historians already in the field it should have occurred to me too to compose this history should express his surprise only after perusing all their works and then reading mine."Obviously, as there were *many* histories of Alexander extant in Arian's day, it hardly translates to Alexander being not at all known or famous.Best regards,Amyntoros

[jim]

As per Jim's comment on Alexander, as a human being Bob what I said was that ATG was a conqueror thus a great military genius as are all virtually all successful conquerors ATG,Gheghis,Ceasar,Napolean ect Mike said ATG was a conqueror 1st a military leader 2nd then a conqueror ect. kind of the same thing.To be skilled as a conqueror one must be profficient in the art of arms . But as a person who does value mankind, some of his actions I do not agree with. Slaughtering women and children for one. Well in war whether we are dealing with ATG in 330 BC or Genghis Khan in the 13th cent AD unfortunately autrocites occur.Some may indeed be motivated by survival.The killing of a hostile tribe in uncharted territory such as the Bactrian wild country may in fact be a neccesity of survival. Remember the trial of LT Kalley in the Vietnam days?Before my time but his defense was killing the village population was a nesscity because the civilian population was taking up arms against his troops,thus ,he had 1st and foremost a responsibiity for the lives of his commrades.

[Efstathios]

Andrew hi. Where exactly is the evidence that Arrian left Bagoas out of his history because he thought that he wasnt a key and that this relatioinship as you say was improper and unworthy to mention? As i recall(but i might be wrong) Arrian mentioned Bagoas and made clear that this bagoas is not the one that killed the persian kings.Also,have you considered that maybe there wasnt any special relationship (aside the massages or these things that the eunouchs did to kings)in order to mention it?Bagoas was close to Alexander,but so were many other people. Maybe Arrian considered Cleitarhus to be inaccurate and just a gossip teller since he didnt find anything special about Bagoas in his primary sources, Ptolemy,and Aristobulos. Of course you may be right,and Arrian indeed left Bagoas out because he thought that his alledgely relationship with Alexander was improper.But it makes more sense if he didnt mention him because he was not important anyway.And as i recall he wasnt.What exactly did Bagoas do to be important in Alexander's history?

[bob]

Jim: I agree with you. I am not on the band wagon of attacking ATG as a person. I do analyze his character, but because we live in the 21st century we must try to do everything we can to view him through ancient eyes, and how is contemporaries would have seen him. In war, things happen, war is war. I agree.

[Taphoi]

Hi Efstathios,The only place that Arrian mentioned Bagoas was at the end of a list of the Trierarchs for the Indus river voyage in the Indica. This list was copied directly from Nearchus. The last Trierarch was "Bagoas Son of Pharnuches", but this is probably an error for "Bagoas the Eunuch" (the Greek is similar as you may know and this list is full of transcription errors - Hagnon became Andron, for example). Arrian says nothing about who he was. The fact that he is the only Persian Trierarch (therefore the highest ranking Persian in Alexander's court at that time)shows his importance quite clearly.As well as in Nearchus, Bagoas was mentioned by the contemporary writers Dicaearchus and Cleitarchus and he was recorded as a dinner host of Alexander in Alexander's own Royal Journal (the Ephemerides). He is therefore mentioned by at least four primary sources. Anyone who suggests he did not exist or was unimportant is either ignorant of the source material or is being disingenuous.Arrian was not ignorant, yet he failed to mention Bagoas in the Anabasis Alexandrou. Worse, there are clear instances where he goes out of his way not to mention Bagoas. For example, Arrian states that Orxines was "hanged by persons Alexander appointed". Arrian knew very well that he was hanged by Bagoas (as we do from Curtius [Cleitarchus]).Best wishes,Andrew

[heraklia]

I think scholars generally find Arrian most reliable for all the reasons
cited - but I emphasize that we know he used contemporary sources
(none of the rest, as I recall, even say what their sources were), he was
less interested than Plutarch in writing "moral history," (Plutarch can
be quite prejudiced, viz., his biography of Julius Caesar), and
Diodorus relied more heavily on sources that are less comprehensive
and/or less dependable.Certainly Arrian seems far less prone to the sturm und drang school
of Alexander biographers.

[heraklia]

Jan, do you ever find yourself wondering if one of the reasons that the
Romans didn't much care for Alexander - perhaps didn't even discuss
him that much, so that Arrian had to write about him, was that a
Macedonian general covered in glory got up their nose. ROMANS
were supposed to be the world's great generals and conquerors. I
always detect a certain reservation about hyping Alexander, when
they tried (and failed, including Caesar) to get the kind of glory
Alexander had when Rome was a small warring city-state.