What problems do the Ancient Sources have to do with the last few days of Alexanderâs Life and the week or two immediately after his death present for the historian? What, in your view is the historical value of the âRoyal Journalâ and the accounts of Alexanderâs âlast plansâ in Diodorus Siculus??
The historian is faced with an array of problems whilst trying to decipher the last few days of Alexander and the week or two immediately after his death, whilst historians were numerous in the Hellenistic Period, few of their works survive and the works that do survive are often fragmentary. Historians are faced with the further problem of how to approach and interpret data, the historical value of the Royal Journal and the last plans of Alexander in Diodorus Siculus also face issues on interpretation.
Alexander died in Babylon on the 10th of June 323 BC[1], The accounts of the death of Alexander are caught up in an âAlexander Romanceâ[2]; an eloquent fusion of fact and fiction surrounding his last days and death. Whilst propaganda and history are often inseparable[3], the historian must wade through this account of the confused situation of the Kings death[4] and the events that followed to try to conclude what actually happened. The theory of a poisoning for instance, is looked upon by most authorities as a tale of pure invention and the main sources do not encourage the suspicion of poison[5] as the âbody showed no signs of corruption but remained pure and freshâ[6], however this accusation, true or false played an important part in the dynastic conflict which immediately followed his death[7] those who were accused were no longer rivals to the vast empire which Alexander left.   In fact there were a multitude of different causes of death alleged very early such as that after a night of heavy drinking he fell ill and died[8], a version of events which must have gained significant circulation, where as others claim he only drank heavily at this banquet due to a pre existing fever and he was in an attempt to quench the thirst it generated[9]. Whilst the idea of poisoning is very confidently dismissed, this rumor seems to be the only consistency throughout the ancient sources, where as with other theories regarding his death, some historians took great pains to gloss over Alexanderâs wild and somewhat unruly lifestyle choices, especially his alcohol consumption, perhaps they were unable to come to terms with the fact that their hero drank himself to death[10] causing the historian to call their works into question facing the problems of how authentic their work is and how much it was influenced by personal bias.
Alexanderâs importance to the next generation is confirmed by the number of works written about him, which are only known indirectly by later surviving historians like Arrian and Plutarch[11]. Both Plutarch and Arrian quote from the âRoyal Journalâ of Alexander and they are not the only historians to do so, Arrian remarks that neither Ptolemy nor Aristobulus share anything different from what the diary or journal states perhaps alluding to their use of the Journal as a source for their own writing on Alexander. While Arrian fails to mention this âRoyal Journalâ until it appeared suddenly toward the end of the text as supporting material for the demise in Alexanderâs health and the time leading up to his death, Plutarch makes a fleeting reference to it earlier in regards to Alexanderâs character[12] remarking that he hunted birds for amusement âAs can be gathered from the diaryâ[13]. Plutarch introduces the demise of the King and his close reference to this âRoyal Journalâ as follows âAccording to the Journals the course of the sickness is as followsâŚâ[14] and Arrian âThe Royal Diary records as followsâŚâ[15], while both these sources tell more or less the same sequence of events there are some differences; Plutarch omits several encounters and also states Alexander spent a day playing dice, which Arrian does not.[16]  Neither of them reveal where they found the text, shedding further doubt on its credibility, there is no way for the modern historian to know for sure if a âRoyal Journalâ did indeed exist and it would be irrational to think Alexander did not record events in such a fashion, if Alexander did indeed have a âRoyal journalâ wouldnât it have been used in reference to all aspects of his life, not just its end? Upon the death of Alexander a journal would have been a very powerful piece of propaganda which could be used to sway the Macedonian people and give favor to any number of people, this âRoyal Journalâ would have been a tool of propaganda, maybe a complete forgery to allow for the success of individuals instead of the accurate and concise recording of historical events and people, whilst it may allow us to pin point specific dates it holds very little historical value.Â
The problems surrounding Alexander do not stop at his death[17], the abrupt and early end to Alexanderâs career prompted speculation in Ancient sources as to what unrealistic plans he might have had in the future[18] âSome Historians have written that Alexander had in mind to sail around most of Arabia, Ethiopia and LibyaâŚothers that he aimed at Sicily and Southern Italy, the fame of the Romans wasâŚcausing him concernâ[19], Arrian gives no speculation as he had âno means of forming accurate conjectureâ[20] but rightfully states based off Alexanderâs character that âAlexanderâs plans had nothing small or mean about them and that he would not be able to remain satisfied with his conquests so farâŚhe would always have been seeking out some unknown land, attempting to rival himself if not anybody elseâ[21]. Diodorus Siculus however, has recorded a set of last plans of Alexander, these last plans are much debated[22], Diodorus states that after Aexanders death he left a hypomnemata with written instructions given to Craterus in late 324[23] and this set of âlast plansâ included the building of â1000 warshipsâŚfor the expedition against the CarthaginiansâŚand the neighboring coasts as far as Sicily. To build harbors and shipyards at suitable places, to build six expensive templesâŚto settle cities and transport populations.â[24] This hypomnemata was so extravagant and expensive that it was preferential not to execute them, but not to diminish Alexanderâs wishes, the army were asked to decide, âWhen the plans were read out, the Macedonians, although approving highly of Alexander, never the less saw these plans as extravagant and difficult to achieve and decided not to carry out any of those that were mentioned.â[25] The historical value of these âLast plansâ are patchy at best, the death of Alexander left a power vacuum in the ancient world that many of his generals were struggling to fill, all sources should be regarded with a certain degree of skepticism, Diodorus drew upon the romanticized view of Cleitarchus[26], leaving no evidence of critical analysis of his sources and a search for truth and precision, leaving it open for bias towards one of Alexanderâs successors.
By the time Alexander died he is a far more complex figure than at the beginning[27] this is due to the mystery and intrigue, the fiction sewed in with the myth that the historian, so many centuries later has no way of prying apart. The sources much be approached with a certain degree of doubt and caution, we must question the method and motive of ancient historiography and understand that the ancient sources did not strive for truth in their recordings of history as we do today, as can be seen in the blatant neglect of some parts of the period[28]. Until unquestionable evidence has been unveiled, such as remains or the recovery of lost historical works the historian will be forever plagued with issues of authenticity and truth.
[1] Bosworth, A. B. (1971). The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda. The Classical Quarterly , 112-136. Pp 113
[2] Baynham, E. (1995). An introduction to the Metz Epitome: Its traditional Value. Antichthon , 60-77.
[3] Bosworth, A. B. (1971). The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda. The Classical Quarterly , 112-136. Pp. 112
[4] Bosworth, A. B. (2000). Ptolemy and the Will of Alexander. In A. B. Bosworth, & E. J. Baynham, Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (pp. 207-229). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 207
[5] Bosworth, A. B. (1971). The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda. The Classical Quarterly , 112-136. Pp 114
[7] Bosworth, A. B. (1971). The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda. The Classical Quarterly , 112-136. Pp 113
[10] Bosworth, A. B. (1971). The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda. The Classical Quarterly , 112-136. Pp 115
[11] Shipley, G. (2000). The Greek World After Alexander 323-30 BC. New York: Routledge. Pp. 6
[12] Badian, E. (1968). A Kings Notebooks. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 183-204. Pp. 183
[16] Pearson, L. (1955). The Diary and Letter of Alexander the Great. Historia: Zeitschrift fĂźr Alte Geschichte , 429-455. Pp. 433
[17] Pearson, L. (1955). The Diary and Letter of Alexander the Great. Historia: Zeitschrift fĂźr Alte Geschichte , 429-455. Pp. 434
Badian, E. (1968). A Kings Notebooks. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 183-204. Pp. 184
[18] Austin, M. (2006). The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp 54
[22] Austin, M. (2006). The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 55
[23] Badian, E. (1968). A Kings Notebooks. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 183-204. Pp. 193
[24] Diodorus XVIII.4.3-5
[26] Pearson, L. (1955). The Diary and Letter of Alexander the Great. Historia: Zeitschrift fĂźr Alte Geschichte , 429-455. Pp. 429
[28] Shipley, G. (2000). The Greek World After Alexander 323-30 BC. New York: Routledge. Pp. 12
