The Friendship that Shaped One of the Worlds Grandest - Essay Example

Ptolemy I and Alexander the Great: The Friendship that Shaped One of the World’s Grandest Historiography Introduction Ptolemy I is widely known as one of Alexander the Great’s generals in his crusades of invasion. Ptolemy I was designated satrap of Egypt in 323 B.C. and after almost two decades of hardships after the demise of Alexander, he proclaimed himself King Ptolemy I Soter of Egypt in 305 B.C. (Ellis 1994, 72). This essay discusses the role of Ptolemy I under Alexander the Great. The discussion also includes an overview of Alexander historiography produced by Ptolemy himself and Arrian, who drew largely on the work of Ptolemy. Role of Ptolemy I under Alexander the Great Even before the Ptolemaic Dynasty emerged, Ptolemy I was already under the command of the infamous Alexander the Great. When Philip was murdered by a faction of aristocrats in 336 B.C.E., Ptolemy went back to the court and backed up Alexander’s rights as heir to the throne (Yardley 1984, 64) As a result, according to Bingen and Bagnal (2007), Alexander employed Ptolemy as his custodian, protector, and friend. Ptolemy escorted Alexander on his battles in 336 B.C.E. in the Danube, and in Corinth and Thebes. Ptolemy strongly supported the fledgling king in his military campaigns (Bingen & Bagnal 2007). Ptolemy persuaded and helped Alexander’s conquest of Asia Minor, Syria, and Persia. These campaigns were carried out to liberate the Greeks from Darius III’s Persian Empire (p. 16). Ptolemy supported Alexander’s nonviolent invasion of Egypt and the building of the Alexandria city, and perhaps escorted Alexander to Zeus’s temple in Siwa. Ptolemy immediately saw the huge importance of Egypt, and a wholehearted concern for the country thrived within him. Ptolemy afterwards escorted the young king to northern Mesopotamia for the ultimate clash with Darius’s armed forces in 331 B.C.E. (Green 1990, 131). Ptolemy played a major role in the crusades of Alexander in India and Afghanistan. When the great king passed away Ptolemy seized control over a large portion of all the territories that Alexander had invaded, becoming overseer of Egypt. Ptolemy’s major objective all over his almost four decades in power was to erect a strong reign, the Ptolemaic dynasty (Green 1990, 291). This dynasty reigned throughout Egypt for three centuries and was the leader of all the empires which were indebted to the invasions of Alexander the Great. Ptolemy built his main city at Alexandria where he also constructed a museum and began bringing together written works for a grand library, which eventually became the hub for scientific study and the world’s greatest compilation of Roman and Greek papyri (Ellis 1994, 54). In addition, Ptolemy started the construction of the lighthouse on the Pharos island (p. 54). Hence, given all the contributions of Ptolemy to Alexander’s grand conquests, it is also important to analyse how important was Ptolemy to Alexander the Great, especially in giving opportunities for independence to the smaller territories of Alexander’s empire. In particular, Alexander was able to vanquish the Persian Empire. His kingdom also comprised a somewhat unified Greece. The city states of Greece had never intentionally or eagerly surrendered their sovereignty to Alexander, but the golden era of Hellenic sovereignty ended (Yardley 1984, 45). The different city states would keep on chasing the dream of independence, but the supremacy of Macedonia was a reality and would stay a reality until it was overtaken by the supremacy of Rome hundreds of years later. The making of this grand kingdom was an extraordinary accomplishment. Nevertheless, it had a terrible defect. It was Alexander the Great’s own accomplishment. The young king innovated as he progressed. If he implemented used local traditions to oversee the new territories of his massive realm, it was possibly due to the fact that it was simpler than creating new administrative mechanisms (Brunt 1980, 481). But Ptolemy saw this catastrophic weakness of Alexander’s empire. So long as the Macedonian king was breathing, the force of his character was capable of uniting the distinct territories and their distinct governmental structures. Hence, after the death of Alexander, his heirs gain possession of his predicaments. Major among these predicaments was the divergent inclination of the empire, the inclination towards fragmentation, towards the partitioning of the territories into self-governing realms under sovereign regimes (Green 1990, 133). Egypt had just been reinvaded by the Persian Empire, at the moment of Alexander’s offensive. Ptolemy appears to have been the one among Alexander’s heirs to observe that the kingdom would eventually disintegrate and could not be ruled by a single person. Ptolemy was the only one who has instinctively understood that this massive achievement of the legendary king would fragment into smaller territories. He picked Egypt as his own domain and by no means surrendered to the lure to jeopardise his ownership of Egypt for a bigger portion of the empire (Green 1990, 191-192). According to Bingen and Bagnall (2007, 105), it is factual that Ptolemy invaded territories to the west and east, but simply for the sake of a stronger Egypt, not in an effort to acquire the entire empire of Alexander. When Alexander passed away, the future of the empire was handed over to Perdiccas, the army head. Trying to keep the unity of the empire, Perdiccas proposed naming an heir after the birth Alexander’s child. Ptolemy totally opposed this suggestion and initiated a movement to split the empire among the major generals. Ptolemy’s desire was fulfilled. The coalitions that would be built among these new entities were shaky and a combination of peace and violence would dominate for three decades (Green 1990, 14). One of the prevalent dangers among these generals was that nobody was fond of Perdiccas, and Perdiccas detested Ptolemy most of all. It was apparent that these two generals would certainly not resolve their differences, and this was much more apparent when Ptolemy secretly took the cadaver of Alexander: Perdiccas transported the remains of Alexander to a freshly built crypt in Macedonia, but Ptolemy usurped the remains when it reached Damascus (Green 1990, 14-15; Burton 1972, 33). The account of Diodorus documented this stealing (Oldfather 1962, 95): Ptolemy, moreover, doing honour to Alexander, went to meet it with an army as far as Syria and, receiving the body, deemed it worthy of the greatest consideration. He decided for the present not to send it to Ammon, but to entomb it in the city that had been founded by Alexander himself... There he prepared a precinct worthy of the glory of Alexander in size and construction. Nevertheless, one fact has to be underlined, and that is the general influence of Ptolemy in moulding the key component of existing Alexander biography. In certain instances, Ptolemy was perhaps the most triumphant of Alexander’s generals, especially with regard to the duration of his sovereignty. Ptolemy breathed his last leaving his realm unified and stable. Writing the Biography of Alexander Ptolemy produced accounts of the military crusades of Alexander the Great. These accounts are comprised in the Anabasis (1907) by the historian Xenophon, or also called ‘Arrian’. However, he makes use of the Deeds of Alexander and a development by Callisthenes, for he has the accurate sequences of the incidents and was familiar of the delegates (Ellis 1994, 85). According to some scholars, like Errington (1969, 480-490), Ptolemy, on the other hand, at times overstates his own contribution. For instance, Ptolemy furnished himself a major contribution in the encounter close to Issus. Also, the written piece was prejudiced against one of the adversaries of Ptolemy, Antigonus Monophthalmus. Lastly, Ptolemy focused on the battle; there are no suggestions that his accounts have deviations. Ptolemy edits Cleitarchus’s version of the military crusades of Alexander, and this confirms that the account of Ptolemy was made public after the History of Alexander by Quintus Rufus (Errington 1969, 480-490). Nevertheless, according to Bosworth (1976), there are cues that the accounts of Ptolemy were made public before 301, which rendered the prejudice of Ptolemy against his enemy quite meaningless (p. 122-125). Yet, this premise is full of loopholes. It is probable that Ptolemy began to create his accounts so as to demonstrate that he was highly qualified for the regal title he had took over. For instance, Ptolemy recounted that he had taken the life of an Indian ruler, an event that should have invoked the images of legendary heroes (Bosworth 1976, 122-125). Therefore, the significance of Arrian is at this time evident. His accounts are the most thorough and serious versions of Alexander’s campaigns and simultaneously these give clear details about the references consulted. The History of Alexander was derived from Aristobulus and Ptolemy (Ellis 1994, 11). That is proclaimed clearly in the foreword and substantiated by the account which mentions continuously the influence and value of both authors. The work of Arrian is frequently interpreted as if it were almost similar to Ptolemy, and a usual abbreviation employed to distinguish that portion of Arrian’s account that is generally thought to be derived from Ptolemy is Ptolemy/Arrian (Ellis 1994, 11-16). In view of this, Ernst Kornemann placed Arrian’s work under a comprehensive statistical testing, deducing what he believed were typical reproductions of Ptolemaic statements (Bosworth 1976, 118-120). The belief, often understood, is that one could consult directly Arrian and then his references and that Arrian could be discounted, a common warrior who commemorated the greatness of Alexander by choosing the most accurate references and copying them with determined reliability (Bosworth 1976, 118-120). Arrian’s references are integral, much more so for the contemporary historian. Specifically, Ptolemy’s image of Alexander is of overwhelming importance, a narrative of the domination by one of its grand designers and successors. However, whatever findings are acquired, they are essentially misrepresented unless they are derived from a thorough analysis of Arrian as an author. It is apparent from the most dutiful analysis of Arrian and the simplest reading of his vocation that he was an advanced and skilled author, with the greatest demands for artistic brilliance (Ellis 1994, 5-9). To state it lightly, he is not likely to have copied out his references without reinterpreting and restating them and inserting his own observations and understandings. The processes sketched for understanding Cleitarchus will hence be valid for Arrian’s references as well. The conceits of Arrian as a historian have to be explained, especially his objectives in creating an account of Alexander (Ellis 1994, 5-9). His styles of quoting references should be analysed as well and, where necessary, his account should be evaluated against other authors’ citation of the similar reference (p. 8). Conclusions Ptolemy was basically the personal custodian and friend of Alexander the Great, who also contributed much to the shaping of the Hellenistic realms into which the empire of Alexander was divided after his passing away. It was the ideas of Ptolemy that persuaded the other generals of Alexander that they have to partition the recently invaded lands among themselves to oversee it more easily and efficiently. The Ptolemaic dynasty that he built survived for roughly three centuries, the longest surviving dynasty among those of the other generals of Alexander. However, Ptolemy’s immortal heritage was his accounts depicting Alexander’s military crusades, which were the source of the comprehensive narrative produced by the subsequent historian of the Hellenistic world, like Arrian. References Arrian (trans. A.G. Roos) 1907, Anabasis of Alexander, Leipzig, Germany Bingen, J. & Bagnall, R. 2007, Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture, University of California Press, California Bosworth, A.B. 1976, ‘Errors in Arrian’, The Classical Quarterly, 26(1), 117-139 Brunt, P. 1980, ‘On Historical Fragments and Epitomes’, The Classical Quarterly, 30(2), 477-494 Burton, A. 1972, Diodorus Siculus, BRILL Ellis, W.M. 1994, Ptolemy of Egypt, Routledge, London Errington, R.M. 1969, ‘Bias in Ptolemy’s History of Alexander’, The Classical Quarterly, 19(2), 233-242 Green, P. 1990, Alexander to Actium, University of California Press, California Oldfather, C. 1962, Diodorus of Sicily, Harvard University Press, New York Yardley, J. 1984, The History of Alexander, Penguin, UK Read More