ALEXANDER THE GREAT: AN EXAMINATION OF HIS PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND CHANGES IN CHARACTER Few historical figures have garnered as much scrutiny and attention as Alexander the Great. Biographers and historians, including Arrian, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Diodorus Siculus, and Plutarch, all devoted significant tomes to preserving the history of Alexander. However, these sources are not true first-hand accounts. The writings of the historians who accompanied Alexander on campaign have not survived to the modern day, but their work lived on through the aforementioned authors, who utilized the now lost original sources to compose everything that we know about Alexander’s personality. Thanks to this, one can glean a deep understanding of the man’s associations with others, including how he was viewed by friends and associates, his character, and the change in his psyche and its effect on his relationships. Perhaps the most integral elements in shaping the Macedonian king consisted of his interactions with his family, friends, and arch-adversary, Darius III. In examining these bonds one must recognize their shifting natures. From his early interactions with his parents, to the influence of his father’s death, to the associations with his childhood companions Hephaestion and Cleitus as they grew from playmates to generals, Alexander was a continuously changing figure. As a general undefeated in battle against the greatest armies of the time and as a young Macedonian king quickly becoming a Greek-Persian emperor, his self-image grew increasingly inflated over the course of his life. With each victory and the hordes of adulating subjects that came with them, the Macedonian assimilated more characteristics that stood in stark contrast to the traditional Greek approach with which he was raised. Instances like his reception from the oracle of Ammon at Siwa Oasis and the proskynesis of his new 1 subjects, encouraged Alexander to identify himself as more than a mere human ruler. While these changes accumulated gradually, one of the greatest agents in altering the demeanor of Alexander came with the death of Darius in 330BC. This event served as something of a tipping point into an era of a more Easternized Alexander, affecting all of his intimate relationships. His amplified sense of self-importance triggered his megalomania and his paranoia to grow uncontrollably. Congruent to the growth in his scope of authority and power, his increased mistrust of his companions led Alexander down a path of recklessness that ultimately played a part in his dramatic final years and, quite possibly, in his suspicious death. Undoubtedly, one of the most significant influences in shaping the young Alexander into the man he would become was his father, Phillip II of Macedon. Philip himself was a great conqueror and talented leader, traits that he passed on to his favored son. When examining the two rulers, it is important to remember that Philip and Alexander were brought up in very different circumstances. While Philip was also the son of a king, his father’s hold on Macedon was rather tenuous. This was reflected in Philip’s time as a hostage in Thebes during the city’s hegemony over Greece. His time spent in Thebes ultimately beneficial, as he learned military and political tactics there from the greatest commanders of the time, Epanimondas and Pelopidas, to whom sources have indicated Philip was eromenos1. On the other hand, Alexander was raised in a court surrounded by friends, tutors, and other men and women loyal to Philip, who had exerted an ironclad control on his territories. Alexander had a fairly idyllic childhood thanks to his father’s control of Macedon through successful military campaigns, and being raised 1 Such Greek romantic couplings are discussed in more detail on p. 17-18 2 The term eunuch encompassed multiple meanings in the ancient world. In some cases 2 with the Royal Pages, an ingenious policy implemented by Philip that ensured that the next generation of nobles would be steadfastly loyal to Alexander. The differences in Philip’s and Alexander’s upbringings were reflected in their reigns. Philip’s more humble beginning molded him into a more grounded ruler than his son would prove to be. And Philip was by no means a modest ruler. For instance, the king portrayed himself as a god at certain ceremonies for propaganda purposes and faced accusations of hubris. His son would later mimic this action and seemingly take it a step further during his time in the East. Even before Alexander’s birth, his father suspected that he would be exceptional. Oracles informed Philip that his child with Olympias would be a worthy heir and “a boy who would prove as stout and courageous as a lion” (Plut. Alex. 227). In all likelihood, Philip eagerly awaited the birth of an heir and was exceptionally pleased to have one who turned out so skilled and competent as Alexander. The young Alexander sought approval from his father. A notable instance of Alexander’s attempts to prove himself worthy included his taming of Bucephalus. Philonicus the Thessalian brought Philip a horse that the king’s attendants deemed completely unmanageable. The ten-year-old Alexander immediately questioned this and took a great interest in this horse named Buccephalus. Philip responded to his son’s entreaties by admonishing Alexander, asking him “do you reproach…those who are older than yourself, as if you knew more, and were better able to manage him than they?” (Plut. Alex. 230). The competitive prince responded that he could manage the steed better than any other person present, and if he failed, would pay the price of the horse. Alexander astutely realized that the animal was disturbed by its own shadow, and therefore he turned it directly into the path of the sun and slowly bridled and mounted it. He then 3 expertly managed and commanded the horse. Upon witnessing this display, Philip and his friends, who according to Plutarch initially watched out for Alexander with great anxiety and caution, burst into applause and praise. Obviously a very loving and proud father, Philip “shedding tears, it is said, for joy, kissed him (Alexander) as he came down from his horse, and in his transport said, ‘O my son, look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee.’(Plut. Alex. 231).” He expected great things from his son. Even with Philip and Alexander sharing the same competitive nature, the love between the two was strong and marked. Philip always had his son’s future in mind. He procured the greatest contemporary intellectual, Aristotle, to tutor Alexander in his youth. As Alexander grew older, Philip trusted his son with royal duties, such as hosting foreign ambassadors when the king was away. When Alexander was only sixteen, Philip left him his royal seal and tasked him with acting as the lieutenant in charge of Macedon while the king was fighting in Byzantium (Plut. Alex. 233). Alexander, eager to prove himself to his father, conquered and expelled the Maedi (Plut. Alex. 233). Philip also recognized Alexander’s talent for war craft and battle maneuvering and encouraged him, remembering the ingenuity in battle tactics he witnessed as a youth in Thebes with the talented Epanminondas and Pelopidas. Soon Philip began to regularly take Alexander into battle with him, giving his son the honored position of head of the Companion Cavalry. At the Battle of Chaeronea, Alexander led his unit against Thebes’ Sacred Band and annihilated them. Alexander had idolized these especially passionate warriors and is said to have wept openly after the battle in their memory. Philip then gave Alexander the honor of serving as ambassador to 4 Athens to deliver the generous terms. Still Philip did not trust Alexander to go on a totally independent mission, so he sent Antipater to accompany him. This mission showed the potent charisma of the young and handsome Alexander. Indeed, the Athenian Demosthenes, who utterly despised Philip and wrote the scathing Philippics against the king, was thoroughly charmed by his son, Alexander. Alexander seemed to have received his love for glory from his father, but Plutarch stated that Alexander “neither sought nor valued it upon every occasion, as his father Philip did” (Plut. Alex. 229). The father-son relationship was colored by jealousy and a sense of competition, more so on the part of Alexander. Philip himself was an extremely skilled ruler and conquered vast territories from his victory at the Battle of the Crocus Field in 353BC, after which he gained control of all of Thessaly and their vaunted cavalry, to uniting the Greek states under the League of Corinth in 338BC. While Alexander certainly admired his father’s achievements, he also worried about how his legacy would compare to Philip’s. Plutarch wrote that “whenever he (Alexander) heard Philip had taken any town of importance, or won any single victory, instead of rejoicing at it altogether, he would tell his companions that his father would anticipate everything, and leave him and them no opportunities of performing great and illustrious actions. For being more bent upon action and glory than either upon pleasure or riches, he esteemed all that he should receive from his father as a diminution and prevention of his own future achievements; and would have chosen rather to succeed to a kingdom involved in troubles and wars, which would have afforded him frequent exercise of his courage, and a large field of honour, than to one already flourishing and settled, where his inheritance would be an inactive life, and the mere enjoyment of wealth and luxury (Plut. Alex. 229-30).” 5 One must take into account that his reaction to his father’s many successes was probably shaped by the typical teenage mindset of any ambitious son of a powerful man of the time, namely a mixture of admiration, envy, the desire for appreciation, and the longing to succeed on his own.