How the Death of Alexander the Great Affected the Later Romanticism Surrounding Him - Literature review Example

How the death of Alexander the Great affected the later romanticism surrounding him 1.0 Introduction Alexander the Great, who came to the throne in October 336 BCE at the age 20, was to become one of the greatest, if not the greatest leader among men in the annals of history. He led an army across Asia, conquering all to as far as India. He was a remarkable person who combined the military genius and political vision of his father Philip, with literary bent, some romanticism and a taste for adventure. The mystery shrouding his death does remove most of the romanticism surrounding him though. Though he was a great leader of me, was Alexander really kind and loyal to his army and close allies? He had many leaders supporting him in his conquest, and had a few close friends. But, was Alexander looked upon as a true friend or ally by the rest of the men surrounding him? While planning further conquests and explorations, it is suspected that Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BCE probably of fever, while there are claims that it could have been due to heavy drinking or even poisoning. Such is the contradiction among historians, that this incident does leave one and all to assess the romanticism surrounding the Great Alexander. So, how did Alexander die? The cause remains debatable and mystic. But when he died, Alexander was just thirty-three years old, and at that age, he was undoubtedly the greatest ruler the ancient world saw (Anatolia, 2005).  This paper attempts to throw light on possibly how this tragic incident could have led to this school of thought. 2.0 Alexander the Great The life and death of Alexander the Great at first sight seems well documented. Full-length history of his reign is well documented by Arrian and Curtius Rufus, and then there is the biography by Plutarch, a book of Diodorus Siculus called ‘Bibliotheca,’ books of Justin’s epitome of Pompeius Trogus, and passages in Strabo’s Geography. However, almost all these are misleading, as they are much later developed records. Of these, Diodorus composed his work in the third quarter of the first century BC, Strabo wrote in the late Augustan period, Plutarch and Arrian in the second century AD. Thus, Diodorus would come the closest to the best ever recording so far on Alexander the Great. Therefore, there is a problem of the transmission of information that is acute. What information did historians use and how faithful were they in their presentation of facts? The argument on Alexander’s death continues to be shrouded in mystery, and whether the facts presented by historians herein are enough to disseminate and authenticate the romanticism surrounding Alexander remains to be seen (Bosworth, 1988, p.139). Propaganda and history are in most cases, inseparable. Without strong physical evidence available, many a time, claims and counter-claims are made by historians and others on the authenticity of events gone by. It comes as no surprise then, that Alexander’s death still remains a mystery. It’s his untimely and unrecorded death that has cast a die over the ruler, who was and remains, the greatest of rulers in history. It is no secret that in some cases, governments and other agencies do control the dissemination of evidence if an event is of personal embarrassment or damage, and distort or withhold sensitive records. Also, many historians, however innocent they may be or their motive, try to manipulate the official apologia of their rulers. Therefore, it becomes extremely difficult to trace the track of events that could have caused the death or fall of great leaders, like Alexander the Great himself. But propaganda is not always clearly labeled, and it can become difficult to detect, especially if it is politically biased or swallowed as factual by secondary sources. This leads us to the question of when and how was Alexander the Great killed or die. The earliest consecutive record to show this was given by Diodorus Siculus, whose records written as long after the event as 45 BC and probably fouled by propaganda subsequently, is most likely source available to trace the event (Bosworth, 1971, 112-136). According to Bosworth (1971, p.113), Alexander died in Babylon on June 10th, 3231 after a prolonged illness of some ten days. Because the period was marked by confusion and gossip, the exact cause for his death cannot be authenticated. Rumours burgeoned, only to be ignored or relegated by ancient and modern historians alike. Droysen mentions this as being ‘senseless conjectures’ and this stirred the hornets nest2. The theory of Alexander being poisoned remains one of the main arguments even today. Alexander was poisoned due to dynastic conflicts and to harass the family of Antipater, according to many. According to the available record, Alexander’s mother, Olympias, returned from exile in Epirus to purge Macedon of a large number of her political enemies, including Nicanor, the younger son of Antipater, to avenge the death of Alexander. In continuation of this theory, Iolaus, the cup-bearer to Alexander and another son of Antipater, was expelled from his grave and his ashes were cast to the wind. This is seen in Diadorus3, analogical to Hieronymus of Cardia, a contemporary. These two events are enough to substantiate the fact that Antipater and his family were suspected to have personal enmity with Alexander and could have been strongly involved in his death. Olympias was not the first to make this public, in ‘Lives of Orators,’ attributed to Plutarch, Hypereides, moved a decree proposing honour for Iolaus, the suspected poisoner of Alexander (Mor.849 F). Though the actual reason for the death remains a mystery, or for that matter, the word poison, from the text in ‘Lives of Orators,’ there is a strong evidence to prove Antipater guilty of its implication. With so much events pointing to Antipater, the incident of Hypereides having his tongue castrated before he was executed and denied burial in Athens stand testimony of the hatred that Antipater had towards Alexander and his role in his death. This again cannot be seen as a reason for his killing of Alexander, or for that matter that Alexander was murdered. However, based on the available evidence or rumour, it can be said that Alexander did have his share of foes in his kingdom, and that not all were happy to be associated with him (Bosworth, 1971, 113). Bosworth (1988) made the remark that there was a lot of manipulation in the way Alexander and his life was written by historians. This much is sure that; nothing concrete can be assumed or assessed from the works of historians available, to evaluate the romanticism surrounding Alexander after his death. In page 142 for example (Bosworth, 1988), he says that an analysis revealed that there were two school of thoughts on the life and death of Alexander. The first was attributed to a baroque and sensation seeking author who was hostile to Alexander and his Macedonians (Cleitarchus), and the other, Diyllus perhaps, who was a better-informed and impartial writer. This in itself shows the manipulation or rumours surrounding the actual history of Alexander (Bosworth, 1988). In such conditions, it’s quite difficult to determine the cause for Alexander’s death. There has been many theory’s surrounding his death. Alexander died due to due to a broken heart caused by Hepaesion, he died due to high fever or diseases, excessive drinking has been quite a point of contention, or death caused by long-term injuries. The theory of death due to poisoning is quite strongly debated by historians today. However, considering the historical hierarchy of events that followed Alexander’s conquest, it’s quite premature to discard most of these theories. One argument that perhaps sounds more appropriate would be the theory of long illness leading to deterioration of his health and ultimate death. The work of Curtius Rufus is deeply infused with rhetoric. His work shows signs of being manipulated. The style shows a lot of flaw and is begot with highly subjective attributions (Bosworth, 1988, 143). We also see that in the case of Diodorus, there is a slant towards an identity crisis. There is enough to suggest that both these writers had the same source for their work. Diodorus spends a lot of time on banalities such as Alexander’s fight against the Persian commanders and savagery (Bosworth, 1988, 143). The inference of India in many of the works of historians shows that Alexander had indeed foray his army into conquering India. Aelian excerpted several of Cleitarchus’ descriptions of animals in India. Strabo made reference of the geographical errors in his description of Central Asia (Bosworth, 1988, 141). Arrian in ‘Indike’ deals with the natural curiosities of India and the voyage of Alexander’s fleet in the southern Ocean4 (Indian Ocean). This much is sure that Alexander led his army into India, only to retreat after being badly beaten by a more organised and fresh army. Personal injuries and insurmountable casualties to his army made Alexander retreat. The injury that Alexander received was critical and he had to be carried away from the battle field. We have seen that much of history has been distorted either knowingly or unknowingly by historians. Ian Worthington (Holt, 1999, 147) researched the work of Bosworth and came to the conclusion that Alexander was not the great leader that was made of him. He questioned the greatness of the man on several grounds. He depleted the resources of Macedonia and alienated his countrymen, took unnecessary risks, drank excessively, and indulged in boundless ego that were attributed to him by Plutarch and Tarn, wrote Worthington. He saw Alexander as a foolish (p.47, 51-2), sacrilegious (p.46-7), bipolar (p.49), and spiteful (p.44). What is more, there are evidences to support this claim. Under such conflicting possibilities, Alexander the Great remains a mystery to us even today. The growing unrest in Greece, the Gedrosian debacle, the disregard for succession, and the atrocity against some of the king’s close friends and allies are testimony of the great man’s inability to perform noble deeds (Hort, 1999, 147). Coenus mystery death in India, cannot implicate Alexander, wrote Badian, but the misfortune and miscalculation, the magnificent funeral and Alexander’s grudging grief stand testimony to something cynical. We cannot be certain as to the circumstances surrounding the sinister death of this man. But those who remember the fate of Rommel are entitled to be cynical… (Badian) No ancient writer or historian ever mentioned the name of Coenus in the list of Alexander’s victims. Worthington went a step further to state that: Coenus defiance of Alexander earned him little in the way of reward as a few days after the Hyphasis mutiny he was found dead in suspicious circumstances (Arr.6.2.1, curt. 9.3.20). The coincidence is too much, and, as with others who flouted Alexander … we can see the hand of a furious and spiteful king at work here (Worthington, p.44) In relevance, it cannot be said that, all that Worthington wrote was factual. Anxious to malign Alexander, Worthington put in print a new myth about the Malli campaign: The nomadic Malli tribe had stolen his horse Bacephalus, Alexander and his army set off to retrieve it. The Malli offered to return it when faced with the might of a Macedonian army, but Alexander, always thirsty for a fight and thinking little of the consequences, besieged the town (Worthington, p.51). Thus, though there are certain aspects of the theory put forth by Badian and Worthington with relevance, they need not totally be thought of as authentic. This brings us back to the question of whether the death of Alexander the Great could have altered the romanticism surrounding him. Alexander was no doubt a warrior with exceptional leadership qualities and bravery. He was reckless and merciless when confronted with resistance. Whatever has been written on him remains questionable (Holt, 1999, 148). Poisoning has been the most favoured subject of discussion for historians on Alexander’s death. Though this theory cannot be overruled, there are other possible causes. The most likely cause could have been long illness caused by the injury in the war in India and drinking. When Alexander led his army into India, the country was known to have epidemic outbursts. Having traveled from dry, cold climatic conditions to hot and humid conditions in India did not suit the army one bit. The tired and weary soldiers were not acclimatised to sudden changes and this hampered their movement and spirit. Also the fact that Alexander had to face an army that was well groomed and fresh legged did not help his cause either. They were beaten in war and Alexander nearly lost his life. The following accounts of Alexander’s death are attributed to natural causes, and are in parts derived from Ephemerides, or the Royal Journals or Royal Diaries of the king. Authorship is attributed to Eumenes of Cardia or Diodotus of Erthrae or both. However, credence to the theory remains unanswered. There is a thought that the name of Eumenes was used to lend credence to this theory. There is also a strong possibility of Alexander dying due to excess drinking as seen in the works of Ephippus of Olynthus and Nicoboule (Heckel and Yardley, 2003). Alexander was a strong drinker. Whenever he had the time, he would ostentatiously sit to drink. For Alexander, wine was like water. There are numerous mentions of the drinking habit of Alexander. In ‘Alexander’s Final Days,’ when oracles from the god relating to Hephaestion were brought to him to fight off his fear of life, he relaxed and began to go back to sacrificing and drinking (Heckel and Yardley, 2003, p.274). While partying in Medius’ tent, Alexander drank throughout the night and again the morning, till he fell sick. Aristobulus strongly suggests that Alexander kept drinking till he fell sick with high fever and died on the 30th of the month of Daesius (Heckel and Yardley, 2003, p.274). A similar narration can be read in Ephimerides. On the 18th of the month of Daesius, Alexander fell sick and developed high fever. He spent time playing dice with Medius. He spent the next few days in bed and listened to his officers’ update him with their ablutions. During these days, Alexander’s fever was becoming worse, and his health deteriorated to such an extent that he could barely talk or move. On the 28th, after being on the sickbed for 10 days, he died on the 10-11th of June, 323 (Heckel and Yardley, 2003, p.274). To substantiate this theory, the ‘Royal Diaries’ reported the matter in a similar tone. One day Medius, the most trusted of his hetairoi called Alexander to a party and began to drink despite having fever. He drank for long before leaving the next morning for a bath. He was still carrying the fever when he was carried out on a litter to perform his usual sacrifices for the day. This continued for some time. 28. Alexander died in the 114th Olympiad, when Hegesias was archon at Athens. He lived according to Aristobulus, 32 years and was 8 months into his 33rd, and his reign lasted 12 years and 8 months (1(b) Arrian 7.24-26, 28). There is also the theory that Alexander the Great was left critically wounded in the war in India and never regained from it. Just before leaving with his fleet to India, Alexander lost his second-in command, Coenus, and during the war, Abreas, Alexander’s shield bearer was killed by an arrow in his face, and Alexander was severely wounded by an arrow in his lungs (Adams, 2005, p.125). If not for his trusted soldiers, Alexander would have died then and there. Alexander never fully recovered from the punctured lung from the pierced arrow and remained unwell for months. With his physical and psychological resistance down, Alexander contracted fever and despite his condition kept drinking throughout the day and night until he could get up no longer. The fever was now more than severe and Alexander finally succumbed to his injury in June, 232. Even in death, Alexander remains surrounded by controversies (Adams, 2005, p.138). Moreover, in the court “Journals,’ according to Plutarch, there are records to authenticate the sickness that Alexander carried with him before his death. On the eighteenth day of the month of Daesulus, Alexander slept in the bathroom with fever. The following day, after his bath, he spent the day with Medius, playing dice. He took bath and performed his sacrifices to the gods, ate a little, yet carried his fever through the night. On the twentieth day, after bathing, he performed his customary sacrifice, and lying in the bathroom, devoted himself to Nearchus, listening to the story of his voyage and the great sea. On the twenty-first, he spent the day the same as before, but more inflamed, and in grievous plight. The following day his fever had reached a very high level, that he had his bed removed and lay by the side of the great bath, conversing with his officers about the army in the army and how they might be filled up. On the twenty-fourth day, his fever was violent and he had to be carried for performing his sacrifices. On the twenty-fifth day, he slept little as his fever was taking its toll. On the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth day, he became speechless, and on that day Python and Seleucus were sent to the temple to enquire whether Alexander should be brought there. On the twenty-eighth5, Alexander died towards the evening (Plutarch, 2004, p.433-435). 3.0 Conclusion Though a lot has been written about Alexander, his romanticism and death, the ancient writers were guilty of manipulating records to suit their taste. While poisoning remained the foremost conclusion attributed to his death, the research carried out in this paper revealed that the possibilities of him being poisoned stood equally strong against the backdrop of fever, drinking, and wound from war. These papers remain inconclusive and cannot be used to judge the thesis question of whether the cause of death of Alexander the Great could affect the later romanticism surrounding him. 4.0 References Adams, V, The Last Days and World Legacy of Alexander Anatolia, Alexander the Great: XI: Alexander the Great and his vast Empire (356 - 323 BCE), http://www.ancientanatolia.com/historical/alexander_great.htm Bosworth A. B, The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda, CQ 21.1, 1971, pages 112-136 Bosworth A. B, Tutorial Readings, Introduction: some basic principles, From Arrian to Alexander (Oxford, 1988), 1-15 Holt F. L, Alexander the Great Today: in the interests of historical accuracy? AHB 13.3, 1999, 111-17 Heckel W and Yardley J. C, Alexander the Great: Historical Texts in Translation, XI Alexander’s Final Days, Final Plans, and the Division of Power after his Death, 2003, 272- Plutarch, 2004, Alexander, Plutarch’s Lives, LXXII, 4-LXXIII. 2 Read More