Hi Dr. Reames, Iāve become unsure about what to believe when reading about Alexander with all the various interpretations of him and how heās been presented in literature. The first thing I ever read featuring him was Renaultās trilogy. So, maybe a little naively, for a while I believed he was very compassionate and obsessed with friendship now Iām not quite so sure. For example, was he actually upset when Dariusās wife died or did one of the historians make that up? Thanks!
Alexander the Invincible & Clemency (not Compassion)
Many years ago now, in the forward to a new translation of Ulrich Wilckenās biography, Alexander the Great, my academic father, Eugene N. Borza, wrote, "It is enough to say that there are many Alexanders, perhaps as many as there are those who profess a serious interest in him."
That quote perfectly summarizes the problem with determining what Alexander was like.
The disagreement goes back even into our original sources (those still surviving and those lost), that reflect differences in opinion. Was Alexander a good person, a bad person, a tyrannical megalomaniac, a vicious invader, a valorous fighter, a noble world civilizerā¦.?
All those opinions were held by people in his own day.
(Much like, if you walked out into your local town square and started polling people on what they thought of Joe Biden, or Donald Trump, youād get a wide variety of replies.)
To complicate matters, Alexander was masterful at marketing himself by the heroic ideals of his day, literally staging his own actions. Today, weād call that propaganda, but we live in a more cynical age, one that assumes the use of propaganda implies self-serving purposes with no belief in the message conveyedā¦which is absolutely wrong in Alexanderās case. The guy BELIEVED his own hype and apparently tried to live up to it.
I find it interesting that even his ancient detractors never really accuse him of cowardice in battle or not leading the charge. He earned all his wounds. That said, I think itās perfectly reasonable to ask if we ought to be glorifying that sort of all-out battle. Nonetheless, from the ancient point of view, they saw nothing wrong with it, and viewed actively seeking out war as a noble aspiration.
Alexander could be absolutely brutal. Ask Thebes. Ask Tyre. Ask most of the Indian nations along the Indus River or the Baktrians and Sogdians, or any of a thousand other villages and people who he sometimes attacked just because he couldāhe wanted another āwin.ā Even in Arrianās rather positive history, he sometimes just does shit to do it.
In one case, Arrian (3.24.1-3) mentions that he was successful against a group of mountainous people (Mardians) who didnāt expect him to attack them because 1) nobody had in ages due to where they lived (difficult terrain), and 2) heād already gone past them. But no, dude doubles back to attack them anyway. WHY? I mean, really? They donāt seem to have attacked his army until he started killing them. Some resisted, most fled, and he chased them and didnāt stop until they surrendered.
āInvincibleā is very much part of Alexanderās own image creation. Alexandros Aniketos! (Unconquered*) You canāt say ānoā to him, or it means you ābeatā him.
Yet part of the expectation for heroic kings and commanders included clemency.
While rage might drive a warrior, the best battles didnāt involve rage, but a āpureā contest of men to prove their aretÄ, or personal excellence. That helps to explain Alexanderās response to Poros. Poros was protecting his kingdom, Alexander invaded it. Alexander won, Poros surrendered and faced Alexander after, asking to be treated as a kingā¦. It wasnāt personal. Alexander wasnāt angry with Poros. (And we know he could get mad at the drop of a hat.)
But that āencounterā ticked all the heroic boxes, so after the battle, Alexander extended clemency.
Clemency isnāt quite the same as compassion. Compassion is more wide-ranging. It can be offered by anyone, to anyone, e.g., a slave can show compassion to his or her owner just the same as the reverse.
But clemency has a distinct ātop-downā aspect. One can only offer clemency to those in oneās powerāas Alexander offered to Porus after the Battle of the Hydaspes. Or as he showed to Dariusās family. Or to Timokleia after the razing of Thebes.
Chivalrous Alexander is a thread throughout the sources, a tradition Renault picked up on. Iām of mixed mind as to how much of itās true. Some of my colleagues think it entirely fictional, a product of later literary traditions intent on using Alexander as a moral model, the āPhilosopher in Armor.ā The problem with seeing it entirely as literary is that Alexander himself cast himself in heroic models. So where do we draw the line between later literary invention vs. Alexanderās own conscious self-presentation? Thatās the problem. (This is addressed in a recent, very good collection of papers in The Legitimization of Conquest: Monarchial Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great, eds., Kai Trampedach and Alexander Meeus. Good stuff in there if you can get the book via ILL.)
Anyway, Alexander certainly wanted to be seen as clement. We witness it over and over. If you surrender to him, heās generous in returnā¦because you acknowledged that heās above you/better than you. Arrian states it bluntly, ā[Mousikanos] acknowledged that he had done wong, which was actually the surest way, where Alexander was concerned, for anyone to obtain what he wantedā (6.15.6). But if youāre a hill tribe who just wants to be left alone? Oh, hell no! Heāll come after you and keep coming until you surrender. Thenā¦heās fine. (As long as you didnāt do anything too terrible leading up to the surrender and, especially, if heās in a hurry to be somewhere else.)
This is sometimes presented as if heās a three-year-old who canāt stand to be told, āNo,ā because heās a spoiled brat.
I think this misunderstands, or at least filters ancient attitudes through modern perceptions. We can understand what Alexander was doing without necessarily approving of it. As I noted above, the ancient mindset glorified invasion, conquest, and war ājust becauseā for fame. I most certainly do not approve, but I recognize that if one is raised with that as a valid, admirable goal, moderns critiquing that individual for holding a common cultural view is a bit petty, or at least silly. āGrow up, Alexander, and think like a 21st century man!ā
Similarly here. Alexander emulates Herakles, and must be even more invincible (aniketos). If you challenge that, you have challenged something very deep and fundamental to his understanding of himself. Yet he also canāt stand it if somebody loses TO him: that makes his victory hollow. This is why he fights Porosā¦and then honors him by returning his kingdom and a bunch more besides. Poros tried to win, but failed. That made Alexanderās victory (nike) honest. Poros then did the honorable thing and asked for clemency without surrendering his honor (āTreat me like a kingā). That made him Alexanderās new BFF.
Why should Alexander get to be The Best? Heās royal, descendent of gods (and heroes). Thatās why he constantly pits himself against Herakles (NOT Achilles, drop-kick that popular mirage please). Herakles is the epitome of Greek heroes. So Alexander is truly the ābestestā if heās even better than Herakles.
So anyway, to answer the last question about whether Alexander truly mourned for Dariusās wife, I expect he did. It would fit with the public image he wanted to present.
But that sure didnāt stop him from getting her pregnant in the first place with the child that killed her in its delivery. He may have been lamenting the death of the child as much as the death of his mistress. (For more on this, see my prior response to an ask about Statieraās pregnancy.)
*a-nike-tosā¦think about shoes. Ha. NikÄ = victory: a-nike-tosā¦one who is un-victoried-over, e.g., undefeated.