How Reliable is Arrian's Account of Alexander's Personality?

A few weeks ago, I looked at the question of whether Alexander the Great really idolized the mythical hero Achilles. There is legitimate evidence on either side of that debate. 

The strongest piece of evidence supporting the Alexander-Achilles connection comes from the writings of a Greek historian born in the 1st century AD named Lucius Flavius Arrianus, otherwise known as Arrian (86/89 - 146/160 AD).

Arrian's Anabasis is important to me for 2 reasons:

#1 - It is generally looked upon as the most reliable ancient account of Alexander's life. When I recently asked "How reliable is Arrian's account of Alexander the Great's career?" on Quora, the answer I received was that it was "very reliable". Arrian was an established, trusted scholar of his time, based his writings off of eyewitness accounts, and knew a great deal about warfare and the military.

#2 -  it is the ancient account which most directly links Alexander to Achilles. 

In Arrian's seminal work, the Anabasis of Alexander (The Campaigns of Alexander), he provides a portrait of Alexander's personality that bears striking similarities to that of Achilles.

"He had great personal beauty, invincible power of endurance, and a keen intellect; he was brave and adventurous, strict in the observation of his religious duties, and hungry for fame. Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable" (VII). 

But more importantly, Arrian makes the connection explicit in multiple passages, including the one below:

"I do not, however, think it unlikely that Alexander cut his hair short in mourning for his friend, for he might well have done so, if only in emulation of Achilles, whose rival he had always felt himself to be, ever since he was a boy" (VII).

The above passage is largely responsible for the popular notion that Alexander's personality and drive can be understood through a Homeric lens.

Despite the strong reputation of Arrian's Anabasis, I've found myself wondering how much faith we can put in it, especially as it relates to claims about Alexander's personality. After all, there was a 400-year gap between the time Alexander died and Arrian went to work on his book.

Such a lengthy time lapse breeds skepticism about a biography's accuracy (as it should). It's hard to trust a story told 4 weeks after the fact, much less 400 years. BUT, there are legitimate reasons to take Arrian's account seriously. 

Over the past week, I've taken another look at Arrian's life and the commonly-cited strengths of his Alexander bio. Here are rebuttals to, or at least some questions about, both of them. 

Strength #1:

Arrian primarily relied on the accounts of Ptolemy (Alexander's childhood friend, soldier in his army, and ruler of Egypt after Alexander's death) and Aristobulus (an engineer who worked for Alexander). Both of these men knew Alexander personally and were present for much of his campaign, unlike other contemporaries of Alexander who wrote their own accounts.

Rebuttal:

Ptolemy and Aristobulus are almost certainly more reliable than some others who wrote about Alexander at that time, but they are far from perfect. Arrian's reasons for prioritizing their accounts is as follows: 

"...Ptolemy and Aristobulus are the most trustworthy writers on this subject, because the latter shared Alexander's campaigns, and the former - Ptolemy - in addition to this advantage, was himself a King, and it is more disgraceful for a King to tell lies than for anyone else. Moreover, Alexander was dead when these men wrote; so there was no sort of pressure upon either of them, and they could not profit from falsification of the facts" (Book One).

As retired Associate Professor of Classics and Ancient History at Auckland University and accomplished Alexander historian J.R. Hamilton admits in the Introduction to the Penguins Classics version of the Anabasis, Arrian's justification is far from convincing. Since when is a king unlikely to tell lies? There was no pressure on Ptolemy or Aristobulus to exaggerate or obfuscate? Really?

Ptolemy became the ruler of Egypt after Alexander's death. His claim to the throne was certainly connected to his status as Alexander's friend and general. He had every reason to portray Alexander as a larger-than-life character (and so did many others). 

Even if you believe Arrian was right to prioritize the accounts of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, it's hard to deny that Arrian's explanation for why he did so is flimsy at best.

Furthermore, J.R. Hamilton believes that the two eye-witnesses Arrian relied on the most struggled to present an unbiased depiction of Alexander's personality: 

"Whereas Ptolemy had been content to pass over the less pleasant aspects of Alexander's character, Aristobulus' book seems to have had a distinctly 'apologetic' character which earned him in antiquity the soubriquet of 'flatterer' (kolax)" (Introduction, The Campaigns of Alexander, pg. 23).  

While Ptolemy and Aristobulus may have excelled in reporting the minutiae of battlefield tactics, topography, and geography, they seem to have fallen short in the less quantifiable realm of individual personality and motivation. In other words, their version of Alexander was likely an idealized one.

Strength #2: 

Arrian was a trusted scholar of his time and an expert in military affairs. His knowledge of warfare allowed him to exercise better judgement than some others when parsing through the multitude of conflicting histories of Alexander.

Rebuttal:

This is certainly a valid point. Arrian was a Roman citizen (although he was Greek) who served in a variety of high posts in the Empire. He seems to have made a good faith effort to find the truth about Alexander and to set the record straight once and for all. 

To Arrian's credit, the evidence we have seems to substantiate most of his book. His attention to detail, especially in military matters, is exceptional. 

But this brings us back to a familiar concern: How does Arrian's military expertise translate into his ability to understand Alexander as a human being? Similarly, is it possible that Arrian's intense interest in Alexander's generalship detracted from his analysis of Alexander's personality? 

Everyone views the past through the lens of his own life. As a youth, Arrian studied under the philosopher Epictetus, an experience which J.R. Hamilton believes influenced Arrian's approach to Alexander. 

"It is clearly from Epictetus that Arrian derived the high moral standards by which he judges Alexander. Epictetus, too, warmly commends repentance after wrongdoing, an attitude which finds an echo in Arrian's praise for Alexander's conduct after the murder of Cleitus" (15).

Arrian's personal feelings about politics and religion may have also colored his analysis. Despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, Arrian could not help but see an ulterior motive behind Alexander's attempts to associate with the gods.

"But Arrian's hostile or skeptical attitude to the ruler cult of his day - an attitude he shares with Plutarch and the historian Appian - prevents him from doing justice to Alexander's divine aspirations...For him, Alexander's claim was merely another 'device', to impress his subjects"(Hamilton, 32-33). 

But, if you look at it one way, Arrian's tendency to doubt Alexander's religious conviction gives his statement regarding Alexander's rivalry with Achilles more credibility. If Arrian believed that Alexander was merely using his "rivalry" with Achilles as part of his public persona, he would have mentioned it. 

J.R. Hamilton makes it clear that Arrian's Anabasis stands out among the other Alexander bios of antiquity. He calls it the rightful "basis of our knowledge" about Alexander. But he does not hesitate to critique its weaknesses, which appear to lie primarily in the personal realm.

For Hamilton, the portrait of Alexander presented in the Anabasis is, at best, incomplete. Some of it rings true (like Alexander's immense confidence), but major pieces are missing (like an intelligible explanation for Alexander's desire to integrate the Persians into his empire). Alexander's plans, his motivations, his vision, aren't ever fully made clear. 

"It is clear that for Arrian Alexander's conquests are merely an expression of Alexander's insatiable appetite for fame" (Hamilton, 29).

Does that quote remind you of anyone? Perhaps a certain hero from Thessaly? 

It is hard to say how much stock one can put in Arrian's claims about Alexander's emulation of Achilles. On the one hand, Arrian seems to have been a smart, experienced man who was unlikely to consciously skew the facts.

On the other, the sources he trusted emphasized Alexander's "heroic" qualities over his despicable ones. And subconscious biases must be considered too. Like many of us who write about Alexander, Arrian may have had trouble letting go of the romanticized version of his subject. It didn't help that he was writing about a person who lived four centuries before he did.

I intend to continue looking into the credibility of Arrian's Anabasis in the coming months. If any readers have some other works they recommend I read, please let me know in the comments below.