pothos.org

3. Delusions of grandeur. Post Siwah, despite the fact that he did not personally tell anyone, Alexander believed he was a god, and that Zeus-Ammon fathered him (literally). Delusions of grandeur today manifest as someone claiming to be someone that is important in society, eg God, Christ, Buddah or George W Bush. Obviously these claims are false. Alexanders belief that he actually was a god and that Zeus categorically fathered him may be delusions. Previously Zeus had been an ancestor. Now he was the father. Why this shift? As his own empire increased, maybe more delusion sank in, at which point an ancestor became a father. All Greek kings claimed decendency from the gods, none actually thought of themselves as a literal son. callisthenes described Alexander as a son of zeus- alexander did not refute this. His fixation on Achilles too is a common feature of mania- the fixation on a character. Some would argue Alexander's entire life was dedicated to replicate the glories of Achilles (to the extent of swimming naked at the beaches of troy with hephaestion, when Alexander actually could not swim). 4. Risk taking behaviour, ego, paranoia. All these were exhibited in Alexander, and if persistent are symptoms of chronic mania. Alexander took personal risk: eg the siege of the mallis in Multan, his whole body covered in scars etc. His ego was great, and at least a few were killed in the name of paranoia (parmenion, philotas).5. Depressive episodes post hephaestian/callisthenes. Likely theatrical or reative depression. Difficult to analyse.6. Often Alexander was chivalrous, eg to sysigambis, but then he razed cities to the ground. This biploar behaviour in extremis characterises mania. Finally, mania has a prevalence of 1 in 100. That is not so uncommon as you may think. Also, it probably had an evolutionary advantage in the distant past. Einstein, van Gough, Newton, hans christian anderson, buzz aldrin, mozart shakespeare etal all had biploar disorder. There is an unfounded link between genius and insanity. What do I think? I dont think alexander had bipolar disorder. I think he was a unique human with a damn complex personailty, so much so that any attempt to study it is futile. He was plain genius, unlike no other.ThanksYassar

Hello YassarAn interesting post, though at first I thought you were saying that you thought Alexander could be psychoanalysed according to modern theories...Anyway, a few comments: since Alexander never told anyone what was revealed to him at Siwah, I don't think that we can use other people's speculations about what he was told as proof of anything.I believe, as does Badian, that: "there is...no evidence for an order by Alexander demanding deification". There is archeological evidence of an Alexander cult which existed in the ancient past and seems to persist even today, despite Alexander's own protest that he was a mortal and not a god ("blood not ichor" etc). Misunderstanding the nature of ruler worship in the ancient world at the demos level is at the root of misunderstanding Alexander in this area, and both ancients and moderns seem to prone to it.For the sake of new visitors to this site, putting it into an historical context, the Macedonian king (to his people) had a mystical connection to the gods which we cannot really appreciate or understand today. The king was a divine human (a god-man?) clearly mortal and yet touched by divinity from the moment he became king (that is an important thing to remember). He was in some sense a bridge between his people and their gods. He had a very significant part to play in the religious life of his people, in the sacrifices and the oracular consultations he was required to make at the start and end of each day and at all important points during the year. (There is archeological evidence that Philip was paid divine honours after his death, so in that sense too Alexander had a divine father.) The king's connection with divinity was not something that Alexander invented, nor was it an egotistical or delusional thing for him to believe. This was his religious heritage, as acceptable to him and his people as, for example, the acceptance and reverence of the Pope as God's representative on Earth is to Roman Catholics.As pharoah of Egypt, Alexander was given a new connection to the gods and a special connection to Ammon whose son he became when he became pharoah (again, an important point).
Cont...

You can question whether Alexander really believed in his gods. We can't know for certain, but if he did, his extraordinary successes must have made him seem specially blessed by them. He must have often wondered why, except that his own religion would tell him why - the gods loved extraordinary deeds and feats of valour and that was how men won their way into the ranks of the divine heroes. His religion also told him that extraordinary men often turned out to be the sons of gods. So if he thought that, for himself, it was also a possibility, it would not be an insane thought, but a reasoned one in his place and time.To try to psychoanalyse Alexander at such a time and distance with all the distortions that that distance lends, is interesting but ultimately pointless. Maybe there were times towards the end of his life when the heights (and isolation) to which he had risen, the pain of his injuries and the loss of his friend worked together to unhinge him a little or to make him more bad-tempered than earlier in his life. He would not have been human if that were not the case.Regards
Halil

Halil is absolutely correct here. You cannot possibly use a modern day book, modern day thinking and modern day assumptions about religion and apply them to the ancient world. What you consider 'atypical' behavior was not in his world, so how can you possibly have a diagnosis?I've stated several times on this Forum that I could make an excellent case for Alexander being deaf in one ear using the sources and certain events, yet I am certain he was not. That's the key. Historians speculate a lot, but they are not necessarily correct. However, in their attempts to grab a toehold on some sort of 'unique' viewpoint that will get them published, they vere farther and farther away from who Alexander really was.Yeah, you could get published, but I wouldn't believe it for a second, but the majority of the populace probably would along with a number of historians Good luck!Regards,Tre

I'm glad to hear that neither of you gentlemen mentioned that Alexander had bouts with uncontrollable laughing. In ancient times man created gods in their image this made room for criticism, questions, and debate. Then there became more movement of god created man in his image and the thought criticism and question would be construed as blasphemy. I believe many people thought of Alexander as a calli idol. I'd rather be lucky than good looking any day, I mean the man was on a roll (he had luck with intelligence). We all got skeletons in our closets.The best to both of yous

Colleagues,Kind regards. I take your point. I have intended not to analyse Alexander the Great - that is impossible. Merely I have tried to find symptoms in the alleged life of Alexander. In truth we will never know what Alexander was like. All we can study is the character put forward by historians, both modern and ancient. Even if we found ptolomey's book, it was written post humously and no doubt riddled with bias and inaccuracies. Hence, there cannot be an objective study of Alexander, not his battles, not his mind. I have taken what MAY be the life of Alexander and tried to detect some symptoms. But yes, it is impossible to diagnose a disease in someone 2000 years in hindsight.Callsithenes, during Alexander's life, suggested he was the son of Zeus. Alexander did not deny or confirm this. I guess thats taken to mean he accepted his exact divinty, as perfectly described by Robin Lane Fox, who has at least 6 references to this fact alone.The description I gave is not complete, and neither have I finalised my article. I will be sure to inform you when published, but it is intended more for a medical audience than a historical one, so it may be full of jargon. Within psychiatry, however, there is a genuine fascination between 'great' humans' and their link to mania. I trust it will be recieved well, but as you say, the product is academically pointless.But thats the whole point of history!Yassar

Hello,I have been curious about certain psychological evaluations on certain episodes- according to one so called "attempt" Alexander allegedly had an oedipus complex although I have also read the idea of a bipolar personality and this is the one that I find most fitting- the guy was extreme- would go from one extreme to another- the perfect gentleman to the cruel killer. I think that it is fairly safe to assume this was part of his personality.Towards the end also we can detect great evidence of paranoia. Heavy drinking could have caused some of the problems.Best regards,
Dean.

Right on the button! One eye was blue as the sky the other dark as night (Arrian). He loved you like brother or would just as soon kill ya or sell you into slavery especially when he was drinking hard. No in-between, it's good to be king.Take care

Hello DeanIt is interesting how many people try to psychoanalyse Alexander using ancient texts to support their theories. To the casual reader, their theories might sound plausible, but to the serious student of ancient history these theories sound cliched and uninformed. This is due to the fact that while these theorists may have studied modern psychology, very few have a level of knowledge of the ancient sources which would allow them to use the ancient texts in this way. In order to do this, the would-be psychoanalsyer would have to know a great deal about the ancient writer as well as the writer's subject matter in order to even know whether what they were reading was accurate, semi-accurate or a total fabrication invented (or borrowed from some other tale) simply to support the ancient writer's moralizing or other purpose. It's one of the things that makes the study of Alexander so fascinating but also fraught with difficulties.As for claiming that Alexander exhibited signs of paranoia towards the end of his life, I had to smile here. If you count how many Macedonian kings ended their lives by dying of natural causes, itGÇÖs no wonder that Alexander drank heavily in the evening, maybe that was the only way he could get to sleep! (I am joking, of course, since again the extent of AlexanderGÇÖs drinking is also open to debate due to the nature of the sources.)Regards
Halil

Incidentally, I forgot to mention that in between episodes of mania/depression, the affected individual will behave completely normally as do you or I. The onset of symotoms can be triggered by any number of things, notably stress. Being a genetic condition, i am begining to wonder as to the mind state of Olympias.ThanksYassar

Sorry, Yassar, I'm still not buying it. Alexander's highs and lows were in response to perfectly understandable situations. Mania and depression have clinical causes but don't correlate *exactly* to situations that could be expected to cause joy/elation or sadness. Now if you could show that Alexander became extremely depressed after winning a battle or very elated upon the death of a loved friend, then I might see that there was a clinical/genetic problem underlying his personality. But I don't see a scrap of evidence for any reaction that would not be considered as lying within the normal spectrum of responses, given the circumstances.RegardsHalil

Hello,I have to admit that we can but surmise very little about the true personality of the Macedonian and it is perhaps nothing more than an exercise in futility.The basic truth is that there are several sources which seem to record the same theme- the fact that Alexander was given to bouts of extreme cruelty and also extreme kindness and not just on one occasion but on several."his heavy drinking is open for debate"- yes in no available source does it say that Alexander drank every night although I think that there are certain details that we can pretty much take for granted and I think that Alexander's heavy drinking is something that most scholars would agree on.Best regards,
Dean.

Yeah, but given the same power, stress, position in society (King) and opportunity, who can say they wouldn't act in the same way? I mean, "extreme bouts of cruelty and kindness" pretty much sums up the human condition in most opf the world, doesn't it? The only thing holding most people back from indulging in their whims for being cruel, far as I can tell, is not being the ones in power, and even the worst b**t**d is capable of extreme kindness when it suits his whim. I just don't see the Big A as much different from most people in the world if they had the same opportunity (even most of the people on this board, too, if they were honest)