pothos.org

Thought the following quote from Justin might generate some lively debate. (Although Justin’s book is an epitome of the works of Trogus, I’m assuming that the opinions presented below are his own.)

Justin 9.8 To Philip succeeded his son Alexander, a prince greater than his father, both in his virtues and his vices. Each of the two had a different mode of conquering; the one prosecuted his wars with open force; the other with subtlety: the one delighted in deceiving his enemies, the other in boldly repulsing them. The one was more prudent in counsel, the other more noble in feeling. The father would dissemble his resentment, and often subdue it; when the son was provoked, there was neither delay nor bounds to his vengeance. They were both too fond of wine, but the ill effects of their intoxication were totally different; the father would rush from a banquet to face the enemy, cope with him, and rashly expose himself to dangers; the son vented his rages, not upon his enemies, but his friends. A battle often sent away Philip wounded; Alexander often left a banquet stained with the blood of his companions. The one wished to reign with his friends, the other to reign over them. The one preferred to be loved, the other to be feared. To literature both gave equal attention. The father had more cunning, the son more honour. Philip was more staid in his words, Alexander in his actions. The son felt readier and nobler impulses to spare the conquered; the father showed no mercy even to his allies. The father was more inclined to frugality, the son to luxury. By the same course by which the father laid the foundations of the empire of the world, the son consummated the glory of conquering the whole world.

Well, even though this isn’t the work of a modern writer, the author’s bias is more evident than is commonly found in ancient works, the highlight being the claim that Alexander often left a banquet stained with the blood of his companions. I don’t know what other lost works were also available to Justin at the time, but I doubt that there were records of other incidents such as the killing of Cleitus! However, I wouldn’t want any debate to focus only on this. What about the claim that the one preferred to be loved, the other to be feared? And there’s plenty more for Pothosians to get their teeth into.

Best regards,

Here is what confuses me about our extant sources: how do we know these ancient authors weren’t any less biased than their modern counterparts? An author is the product of his or her times, of their environment, and no matter the arena – religious or secular – an element of personal bias is bound to creep into the work. How do we know Arrian wasn't the Peter Green of his generation, or Diodorus wasn't simply a Greco-Roman Victor Davis Hanson? Because we lack access to their source materials – or to Plutarch’s and Curtius’ – how can we judge if they’re telling even a fraction of the truth?

We all know that written propaganda is as old as Rameses the Great, perhaps even older; thus, on the walls of the temple of Amun at Karnak you’ll find enough moralizing, spin-doctoring and character assassination in the wake of the battle of Kadesh to warm the cockles of a modern politician’s heart. But, we also have the Hittite account of the same battle -- a balance to Pharaoh's hubris that allows us to form a much more accurate picture.

We have nothing like that for Alexander. Only second-and-third hand accounts said to have been taken from the memoirs of those who knew him – though we lack any means of corroboration. With that in mind, who then can say with any certainty that Justin’s portrayal isn’t accurate? Wherever the truth might lie, he does paint a captivating picture of Alexander as a living, breathing – and flawed – man.

A very interesting excerpt, Amyntoros! Thanks for posting it.

Scott

First of all what you can see here is that he adresses readers that are familiar with Alexander's and Philip's life, or his writing was bad at that one. Because while in some ocassions he says "Philip" and "Alexander", and "father" and "son", in others he says "the one" and "the other", and changing order too, so one may not understand who is who.

On to the comments now.

Alexander often left a banquet stained with the blood of his companions

Either he uses plural in order to give emphasis, or apart from Cleitus he refers to Parmenion, Philotas, and Callisthenes. But i dont think that these three were considered as his companions. So i think he uses the plural for emphasis.

Also we see that he considered Alexander to be as fond of wine as his father was. We dont know if that was the case, and i think Justin didnt know either. He just uses other peoples' oppinions. Since this comes in contradiction with Plutarch, we cannot say who says the truth. But other sources too like Arrian and Diodorus, dont mention that Alexander was that fond of wine, as his father was, rather than he was more an ocassional drinker.

The one preferred to be loved, the other to be feared.

Which is which?

Nice question.

ScottOden wrote:We have nothing like that for Alexander. Only second-and-third hand accounts said to have been taken from the memoirs of those who knew him – though we lack any means of corroboration. With that in mind, who then can say with any certainty that Justin’s portrayal isn’t accurate? Wherever the truth might lie, he does paint a captivating picture of Alexander as a living, breathing – and flawed – man.

Agree with you Scott – with your whole post, actually. However, the specific reason why I suspect Justin of personal bias is the “blood of his companions” bit. I doubt that there are any other similar events in the lost sources because Arrian, Plutarch et al would surely felt need to comment. It could be that Justin was thinking of Parmenion, Philotas, and Callisthenes, as Efstathios said. Their deaths didn’t occur at a banquet, but that reference may just be for rhetorical effect. It is a captivating picture though – and of Philip as well.

Efstathios wrote:First of all what you can see here is that he adresses readers that are familiar with Alexander's and Philip's life, or his writing was bad at that one. Because while in some ocassions he says "Philip" and "Alexander", and "father" and "son", in others he says "the one" and "the other", and changing order too, so one may not understand who is who.

Admittedly Justin is not famed for his writing style. I believe that when he says “the one” and “the other” we should look at the earliest preceding sentence which identifies them. So if he began with Philip and then Alexander then he continues in that vein until there is another named reference. Therefore, when he says “The one wished to reign with his friends, the other to reign over them. The one preferred to be loved, the other to be feared” he means Philip/Alexander, Philip/Alexander. And it’s these two sentences which intrigue me the most!

Efstathios wrote: Also we see that he considered Alexander to be as fond of wine as his father was. We dont know if that was the case, and i think Justin didnt know either. He just uses other peoples' oppinions.

I disagree here - there are enough surviving references to Alexander and drinking for Justin to reach his own conclusion on this – Persepolis, the night of the pages conspiracy; the symposiums with Callisthenes; the Cleitus affair; his last days, etc. And, as Scott and I remarked, Justin would have had access to sources now lost to us. That Plutarch feels the need to excuse and explain away Alexander’s drinking – “To the use of wine also he was less addicted than was generally believed” - makes me suspect that there were more references to wine than those which we know. I’m not saying that I agree totally with Justin, btw, or that I agree with Plutarch, for that matter. I think that symposiums and wine were an irrevocable part of Macedonian culture and kingship and that the ancient writers had difficulty accepting or understanding this. Look at how in the last century the US went from Prohibition to a disregard of alcohol abuse to an understanding of how excessive drinking can affect people’s lives. Each succeeding generation (or two) has a different perspective on the use of alcohol.

Best regards,

The opinion preserved here is likely that of Satyrus, writing in the third century (Hammond). This is the same fellow who implicates Alexander and Olympias in the murder of Philip so the “bias” might be against Alexander.

Makes it more florid, not necessarily less true.

Efstathios wrote: Since this comes in contradiction with Plutarch, we cannot say who says the truth. But other sources too like Arrian and Diodorus, dont mention that Alexander was that fond of wine, as his father was, rather than he was more an ocassional drinker.

Gods! What a boring king was Alexander. Some sort of Macedonian Sandra Dee

Oh, excuse me, what rubbish! Plutarch spends an entire passage apologising and excusing away Alexander's drinking. Hermolaus names it and the resulting hangovers - Plutarch's "often" sleeping until lunch the following day (or all day for that matter) – as one of the reasons he could no longer put up with him. You need only to read Arrian to see the number of times Alexander is mentioned drinking - particularly in the last years.

Paralus wrote:The opinion preserved here is likely that of Satyrus, writing in the third century (Hammond). This is the same fellow who implicates Alexander and Olympias in the murder of Philip so the “bias” might be against Alexander.

Interesting ... wonder if it (the opinion) passed into Justin's work via Trogus, or if it was an added flourish by Justin. When one writes an epitome is it considered bad form to insert one's own thoughts, or pieces from another work? Not that it matters - I'm just naturally curious.

Best regards,

Paralus wrote:The opinion preserved here is likely that of Satyrus, writing in the third century (Hammond). This is the same fellow who implicates Alexander and Olympias in the murder of Philip so the “bias” might be against Alexander.

Makes it more florid, not necessarily less true.

Efstathios wrote: Since this comes in contradiction with Plutarch, we cannot say who says the truth. But other sources too like Arrian and Diodorus, dont mention that Alexander was that fond of wine, as his father was, rather than he was more an ocassional drinker.

Gods! What a boring king was Alexander. Some sort of Macedonian Sandra Dee

Oh, excuse me, what rubbish! Plutarch spends an entire passage apologising and excusing away Alexander's drinking. Hermolaus names it and the resulting hangovers - Plutarch's "often" sleeping until lunch the following day (or all day for that matter) – as one of the reasons he could no longer put up with him. You need only to read Arrian to see the number of times Alexander is mentioned drinking - particularly in the last years.

I am still quite suspicious of Hermolaus' heroic and very Republican speech (but then I've raised 4 teenage boys in a culture of hunting and military service, while still teaching them ethics, history, etc and standing over them while they did their homework...but still, despite their virile but informed opinions, it is the personal that angers them at that age, not the behaviour of a king/president. ).

If, and I stress the if, Hermolaus did say something to that effect I believe he was spouting the opinions of that dour and certainly mood-killing historian, Callisthenes. When your petulant little goose is already cooked, any excuse will do. It seems so much more "noble" then "He was mean to me!".

I do have to ask just how many times has Arrian mentioned ATG's drinking? The apologia for Alexnader's drinking..is that a response to the "Diaries"..themselves a response possibly to the "pamphlet"....lot's of CYA going on after ATG died. That whole last month of his life is lost to us in the factions left deflecting away any "blame" from themselves.

Here I am not saying that ATG didn't drink like a fish. Llike all Macedonians worth their salt, the Macedonian parties must have been brutal to those not used to them. It is remarkable to me that some "histories" mention this apparantly non-stop partying and yet fail to account for, in the last months his life the journey down the river, which certainly wasn't a day-trip. We don't really hear of Hephaistion's funeral, which at the least says to me that we've lost a huge chunk of information about that last month ot so. An event like that must have been huge. Instead the Diaries don't mention it?

Another thing about the increased drinking theory...isn't this the same man who flung a cup at Attalus when he was 19 or so? His behaviour seems pretty consistent to me throughout his life. On occasion he totally lost it and then for periods years long we don't hear of any "incidents".

Ancient sources on Alexander's drinking.

334 BC. Dium (D.17.16.3-4) a nine-day festival sponsored by Alexander [probably Olympia] ends in a banquet.
333 BC Phaselis (P.17.9) Alexander drunk, crowns a statue.
333 BC Issus (C.3.12.2) Alexander invites close friends to a banquet after the battle.
330 BC Persepolis (P.38.1-8; D.17.72.1-6; C.8.1.19) Alexander drunk burned down the Palace of Persepolis.
328 BC Bazaira near Maracanda (C.8.1.19) Alexander and his troops feast after a great hunt
328 BC Maracanda (A.4.8.1-9.1; P50.1-51.11; C.8.1.22-52; J.12.6.1-3) Alexander drunk kills Cleitus
328/327 BC Uncertain location (C.8.4.22-30) banquet wherein Alexander meets Roxane.
327 BC Uncertain location (P.54.4-6) Symposium wherein Callisthenes refuses to perform proskynesis.
327 BC Uncertain location (P.54.3-6) the symposium wherein Callisthenes is politically undone.
327 BC Bactria (!.4.13.5-6;C.8.6.14-27) Alexander drinking heavily while a conspiracy unfolds.
327 BC Nysa (A.5.2.5-7; C.8.10.15-17; J.12.7.7-8 ) a revel on 'Mt Merus'
326/325 BC India (D.17.200.2-3) C9.7.15-18 ) conflict between a drunken Macedonian and the boxer Dioxippus at a symposium
326/325 BC India C.9.7.24-6) Dioxippus accused of stealing a golden cup at a subsequent symposium.
325 BC Carmania (A.6.28.1-3; P.67.1-6; D.17.106.1; C.9.10.24-9) a seven-day drunken revel
324 BC Persis (P.70.1-2; Ath.437a-b; Ael. VH 2.41) a contest in drinking neat wine after the suicide of Calanus
324 BC Susa (P.70.3-6) feasting in celebration of mass marriages.
324 BC Opis (A.7.11.8-9) a general feast in celebration of the reconciliation between the king and his troops.
324 BC Ecbatana (Ael. VH 3.23) Alexander's heavy drinking at the houses of four friends.
324 BC Ecbatana (A.7.14.1 P.72.1-2; D.17.110.7-8 ) a Dionysiac festival and the death of Hephaestion.
323 BC Babylon (D.116.1; J.12.13.6-7) festivals after Hephaestion's funeral.
323 BC Babylon (A.7.24.4; P.75.3-4) drinking party.
323 BC Babylon (A.7.24.4; P.75.3-4; D.17.117.1-2; J.12.13.7-10; Ephippus GrH 126.F.3; Nicobule FGrH 127.F.1) Alexander joins Medius after the above and continues to drink.
323 BC Babylon (A.7.25.1; J.12.14.8-9) more drinking with Medius until late in the night.

References:
"Alexander the Great: The Invisible Enemy: A biography" by John Maxwell O'Brien p. 259 note 13

http://www.lysimachos.com/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=27

The passage quoted by amyntoros reads like Roman Republican sentiments of the mid first century BC and is therefore probably Trogus. Trogus' family served Pompey the Great, but seems to have defected to Caesar. It is tempting to suspect that Trogus is using Alexander and Philip as proxies for discussing the characters of Pompey and Caesar. He could not of course do so openly without courting death. This may be why the character discussions read slightly oddly. Pothosians will recall that Caesar and Pompey were also father and son, but Trogus may be drawing a parallel between Caesar and Alexander, just as Plutarch did a century later.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Callisto wrote:Ancient sources on Alexander's drinking.

Snip - 23 mentions in roughly 10 years - Snip

References:
"Alexander the Great: The Invisible Enemy: A biography" by John Maxwell O'Brien p. 259 note 13

http://www.lysimachos.com/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=27

I'm sure several were partly driking sprees...and it had an increased level toward the end, but it seems not to back up the idea of an Alexander who was drunk all, or even most, of the time.



Of course the is in preparation for a dousing from the pro-drunk faction...

That list in Callisto's post..is THAT the proof that O'Brien rests his whole idea on?

Now I'd agree that ATG was probably an alcholoic if there were 23 instances of him drinking alone. But to throw in festivals, marriages and banquets after battles seems really ridiculous (no one else in the ancient or modern world does this?). And pointing out that Dioxippus misbehaved as further proof that ATG was a drunk justs seems weird.

I know there will never be the definitive history of ATG..such a thing was doomed from the start. I think what bothers me about the whole "drunk Alexander" meme is that it tries to isolate him from his own culture. Like he was the only one getting soused (if indeed he was drinking as much as some like to claim) in the Macedonian camp.

rjones2818 wrote:[I'm sure several were partly driking sprees...and it had an increased level toward the end, but it seems not to back up the idea of an Alexander who was drunk all, or even most, of the time.



Of course the is in preparation for a dousing from the pro-drunk faction...

"Pro-drunk" faction indeed!

No, it's more in relation to the "occasional" descriptor or "social" used on another thread. If it were either in reality then Alexander was a most social fellow at his occasional bouts.

athenas owl wrote:I think what bothers me about the whole "drunk Alexander" meme is that it tries to isolate him from his own culture. Like he was the only one getting soused (if indeed he was drinking as much as some like to claim) in the Macedonian camp.

I don't necessarily think that "too fond of wine" is a statement that isolates him from his own culture - more that his (and Philip's) drinking was considered inappropriate for a king, IMO. To the rest of the Greek world, this seemed like a barbaric practice. Sources indicate that all the Macedonians drank heavily at their feasts, drank unwatered wine, etc. However, the historians were rarely concerned with all Macedonians, but with Alexander, so the focus is on him. Same thing happens on this forum. I also don't think that those Pothosians on the other side of the argument necessarily see him as "drunk Alexander." Seems to me that they (I) think it rather futile to deny that he drank, sometimes to excess. His father did, Alexander did, the rest of the army did. When they partied, they partied hard. Look at the celebration after the passage through Gedrosia and the later competition for who could drink the most. Some people died as a result of this!

Interesting how of all the statements Justin made, this is the one that gets the fur flying.

Best regards,