pothos.org

Aelian 14.47It is stated Alexander son of Philip was jelous of all his friends and envious.Disliked perdicas for been a natural Soldier
Lyimachus Reputation as a general
Seleucas Bravery
Antigonus Ambition pained him.
Ptolumys Adroitnes.Anyway Susan buts great credential to these writings and atrributes them to Alexander having a dark side, even putting them aside from Arian and Curtius.In my opinion hearsay, infact rather crazy its these qualities Alexander needed oin his friends and generals for the succes in which they excelled.Im sure if Alexander felt strong enough about any of them, Parmenio and Philotas would have had extra company.Maybe he would prefered,generals who were not generals, or brave, or popular.Suasan your theory is rediculous how on earth did Alexander sleep at night.Kenny
Antipaters qualities as a leader.

They're not my words, they're Aelian's. You may not like what they say, but they were written down a lot closer to Alexander's time - around 200AD, shortly after Arrian.As for the dark side of Alexander, again you may not like it, but as I said, this is a discussion forum not a fan-club.Susan

Kenny - it would help if you replied to posts where they originated rather than starting a new thread every time a post is of particular interest to you, or you think it is controversial. For a while here I wondered if you were quoting from an email from Susan, as I had no idea what you were talking about until I found her post on your "Where, Shakespear, Di.Vinci or Plato Greater" thread.As for Alexander being paranoid - that's not what the quote from Aelian says. It doesn't have to be interpreted as meaning Alexander was *constantly* jealous of his companions. There could have been times or situations where he felt justified in these feelings. He certainly wasn't too happy with Cleitus when he reminded him how he had saved his life!I think it is significant that neither Hephaistion nor Craterus are included in this remark of Aelians - and also that after Hephaistion's death, when Craterus was already on his way back to Macedonia, Alexander never promoted another companion to the role of Chiliarch, even though those duties still needed to be performed. It does suggest that he didn't trust anyone else suficiently to fulfill that position. However, I still don't see how any of this indicates "paranoia" on Alexander's part.Linda Ann

Alexander did have a dark side (don't we all?? nobody is 'perfect' not even our best heroes). But I don't think it started to show up until later on, when he'd killed Cleitus in that drunken brawl, and especially after Hephaestion died. In those days you had to watch your back and being the King and leader he would have many enemies even in his own camp. So when those suspicions (and reasons) arose he retaliated (such as putting Parmenio and Philotas to death). That was life in those days and really it hasn't changed much over the centuries.

Alexander did have a dark side (don't we all?? nobody is 'perfect' not even our best heroes). But I don't think it started to show up until later on, when he'd killed Cleitus in that drunken brawl, and especially after Hephaestion died. In those days you had to watch your back and being the King and leader he would have many enemies even in his own camp. So when those suspicions (and reasons) arose he retaliated (such as putting Parmenio and Philotas to death). That was life in those days and really it hasn't changed much over the centuries.

Sorry, but I have to laugh! A dark side? I would say that started at Thebes! Today's generation may call it dark. Even Thebes seemed to gnaw away at Alexander because of his idea that Dionysus may have not been happy with him for it, but in all reality, dark sides are sometimes simply "doing what one has to do", and he does it often! Individually or collectively, he behaves as all who had gone before him had done! Who calls Achilles's behaviour dark? The goddesses certainly did.

Hi Jan,Although I didn't have quite the extreme reaction as you, I would have to agree that his 'dark side' - at least as far as *we* would judge it - manifested itself much earlier than the Cleitus episode. Thebes? Probably. Possibly even earlier, *if* he had anything to do with Philip's murder (which I don't believe, but some still do).Again, however, we get into the murky area of what would have been considered 'dark' in his time, and what we now consider based on our modern ethics. It's a fascinating idea, I think.All the bestMarcus

(Jan) " but in all reality, dark sides are sometimes simply "doing what one has to do", and he does it often! Individually or collectively, he behaves as all who had gone before him had done!"I don't believe that, sorry. Alexander didn't do what he *had* to do - he did what he *chose* to do. The destruction of Thebes was a choice, the crucifiction of thousands at Tyre was a choice, the sending of Greek mercenaries to the mines was a choice, the ethical treatment of Darius' family was a choice, the extreme generosity towards his friends was a choice, etc., etc. Just because there had been other examples of similar behavior before Alexander doesn't mean that Alexander was just following along. His decisions and his actions are indicative of his personality. Of course, he needs to be assessed within the context of the period, but I'm quite sure Alexander never sat and thought "now what did anyone else do in these circumstances?" And the histories tell us that he didn't appreciate receiving advice from others. He thought for himself - dark side or otherwise.As for Achilles... Do you think he even had a lighter side? :-)Best regards,Linda Ann