Quintus Curtius, Plutarch And Arrian

Alexander the Great has been revered as military genius, tactician, and godlike conqueror. Many of the accounts taken down of his life make him out to be the hero of Western culture and practice. The peoples he conquered and the territories he took over worshipped him as a god and even placed him alongside the likes of Zeus and Ra. The main source used to gain knowledge of Alexander’s life stems from historians and philosophers, such as Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, and Arrian. These writers recorded the events that took place in his life as though they shared close ties to Alexander. They also wrote the history of Alexander and believed it to be completely factual. However, these writers were all Roman citizens and lived centuries after Alexander the Great had passed away. Their depiction of Alexander the Great was also heavily influenced by their setting. This means that since they lived in Roman territory, it is understandable that they would take such a romantic view of his life. Knowing these writers’ biases, it is peculiar that our modern take on Alexander had focused so heavily on their work. Although Alexander was a tremendous leader and conqueror, it is very easy to confuse historical facts about his life and depictions of Hellenistic Romanticism. Many scholars throughout history have been concerned with the intermingling of romantic and factual accounts. They are also concerned with whether or not there should be a clear distinction between the two. Scholars have been quite interested in the work of Arrian as it pertains to Alexander the Great, because he is one of, if not the most, well known historians pertaining to Alexander the Great. He is also a Greek Alexander Romantic and it is quite clear to come to that conclusion based on his distorted and exaggerated depiction of the ruler. The problem that may surface about my topic is how speculative it is. None of the points made by any of the historians can be accepted as fact regardless of their evidence because each has their own opinion and/or bias on the topic. To analyze Alexander the Great one must inevitably look into the work of ancient historians because it authors like Arrian, Curtius, and Plutarch who are directly responsible the romantic image so many people have painted of Alexander. They take note of events in his life that prove his greatness. For example, there exists a story that explains how Alexander got his horse Bucephalus. Bucephalus was a horse that was unlike anyone had ever seen at the time and was being offered to King Phillip II for purchase. However, the horse was far too wild and could not be tamed. The horse would toss off its back anyone who attempted to mount it. Phillip II wanted that the horse be taken away. Alexander was observing from a distance and decided to try taming the wild horse for himself to the surprise of his father and the older men that tried before he did. Although the other were basically mocking him for thinking about trying to tame the horse, he did so anyway. Alexander, however, took a different approach then the men before him. He observed the horse keenly and noticed what the problem was. The horse was terrified of its own shadow. He proceeded to position the horse towards the sun so that there was no shadow and mounted the horse comfortably. The crowd, …show more content…
This comes about because of the many times cultures have written and rewritten their detailed accounts of Alexander. The positive caricature of Alexander the Great drawn by the works of Arrian and Curtius seem to be quite different from how historical evidence depicts the conqueror. Modern historians such as Brooke Allen even criticize modern day cinema, specifically Oliver Stone’s film Alexander, for trying to portray Alexander as a sensitive, accepting, and heroic figure. Allen states that, “each succeeding era seems to recreate Alexander in its own image.” This image is unsurprisingly romantic because of Arrian and Plutarch. Evidence suggests that he was a trailblazer for future Western Imperialism. This causes many to speculate as to whether or not accounts taken by historians such as Arrian should be accepted historiographically (Allen,