Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Alexander-The-Great-As-A-Philosopher-Ki 👈

1. Alexander the Great as a Philosopher-King
By Donald Joseph Broussard
King Alexander III of Macedon, besides being a general par excellence, was also a philosopher.
His early life was like that of his hero Achilleus; his education consisted both of lessons from
one of the time’s greatest philosophers as well as “uneducated” barbarians.
Alexander became king on the death of his father, Philip II of Macedon, in 336 B.C. He
was prepared for this awesome responsibility partly because Aristotle, himself a Macedonian and
student of Plato, was secured as teacher to tutor prince Alexander; the fourteen-year-old prince
probably owed his desire to pursue the unknown geographic areas of his time to Aristotle
(Bosworth 1988, 21).
In youth, Alexander learned passion from his mother, Olympias, a “devotee of the
orgiastic cults of Dionysus” (Hamilton 1974, p 29). His father, Philip II, “has sometimes been
contrasted with Olympias as supplying the Apolline or rational aspect of Alexander’s character”
(Hamilton 30). The prince’s reading consisted of Euripides, who fled to the court of Archelaus I
of Macedon in 406 B.C. and whose plays he knew by heart (Bosworth 26). Also standard reading
was Homer, from which Alexander styled himself after Achilleus, and his best friend,
Hephaestion, as Patroclus (Lipsius 1974, 41). Alexander would become familiar with the
historian Philistus and the dithyrambic poets Telestus and Philoxenus (Bosworth 20).
Alexander saw himself as destined to topple the mighty Persian empire, which had, under
Xerxes I, antagonized Greece 150 years before (Benoist-Mechin, 1966, 28). It was conventional
Greek thought to seek revenge; proof of this is the traditional maxim lex talionis – law of
retaliation (Benoist-Mechin 40) in Aeschylus’s Oresteia. Greece remembered the invasion in 480
B.C. by Xerxes (ibid 22); this led to demands of retribution.

2. Aristotle taught the prince that “the tyrant’s aim is pleasure; the king’s is duty. Hence
they differ in their appetites and ambitions: the tyrant grasps at money, the king at honor”
(Lipsius 45). Aristotle, moreover, considered Persia tyrannical in his Nichomachean Ethics
(1160b30); therefore Persia was to be subdued as an ancient and evil enemy.
An example of this education occurs when the king was ill, before the battle of Issus. His most
senior general, Parmenion, sent a letter accusing the king’s doctor, Philip the Arcananian, of
conspiring with the enemy Persians to kill him. As Alexander drank his medicine, he handed his
doctor the letter and so remembered “Aristotle’s lessons in distinguishing the self-assured king
from the eternally suspicious tyrant” (Lipsius 114).
He would subjugate the Persians, not obliterate them; he had admired Cyrus the Great,
Darius I and Xerxes I. Upon coming to a fallen statue of Xerxes, Alexander accosted the
long-dead tyrant:
Shall we neglectfully pass thee by, now that thou art prostrate on the ground, because
thou once invadedst Greece, or shall we erect thee again, in consideration of the greatness
of thy mind and thy other virtues? (Plutarch 263)
Alexander contented himself with burning down Persepolis, the palace of Xerxes (ibid). That
repaid Persia for her war with Greece.
The concept of oikumene – literally, family state (Historia Terrarum iv, 4) became policy
at Alexander’s court. When he visited the tomb of Cyrus II of Persia, forefather of Darius I and
Xerxes I, Alexander became convinced that “he must add to his Macedonian heritage that of the
King of Kings. . . “ (Benoist-Mechin 187). The empire would be ideally held together by
common culture. This policy caused much bitter division between the King and his troops. This
division was personified in the quarrels of Hephaestion and Craterus, two of Alexander’s most
trusted friends. Plutarch relates that “Hephaestion was a friend of Alexander’s, while Craterus

3. was a friend of the King’s” (Plutarch 272). Hephaestion agreed with the King’s policies;
Craterus, however, opposed them, preferring Macedonian customs (ibid.). The two men clashed
vehemently:
They came to blows which Alexander himself had to break up, swearing that he loved
both men more than any other human beings. At the same time he told them that he would kill
them both – or at least the one who started it – were they to fight again (Lipsius 162).
His friend Cleitus, whose sister had nursed him as a baby (Lipsius 170) and who saved
his life at the battle of Granicus (Bosworth 43), challenged the king with a quote from Euripides’
Andromache: “Alas, what evil custom reigns in Greece” (Lipsius 180). In drunken rage, Cleitus
reminded the king precisely who had saved his impetuous life, and decried the increasing
Orientalism of the court (ibid.). Alexander grabbed a spear and, in equally Dionysiac passion, ran
his friend through.
When Alexander entered the palace of Darius III, “he beheld the bathing vessels, the
water-pots. . . all of gold . . . and turned to those about him and said, ‘This, it seems, is royalty’”
(Plutarch 245). This was the palace of the King of Kings, in whose presence courtiers were not
permitted to stand (Historia Terrarum, vol. iv, 4).
Alexander’s “view that the whole world is a whole unit, and all things may be brought
together” possibly came from the ecumenical philosopher Aristotle (ibid.). This was exactly how
Alexander proceeded to unite his empire. He would amalgamate non-Greek with Greek: not
purely Hellenic, but Hellenistic. He started with the oriental idea of proskynesis – prostration.
Aristotle’s nephew Callisthenes refused to perform the ritual; he was accordingly “goaded by the
king into damning the Macedonians since, said Alexander, quoting Euripides, ‘On noble subjects
all men can speak well’”. The sophist Callisthenes – general Lysimachus considered him such

4. (Plutarch 280) – was then imprisoned (Lipsius 182).
At the Hydaspes river, Alexander encountered King Porus; the Macedonians, never
having seen elephants before, rallied under Alexander and an old phalanx commander, Coenus
(Lipsius 195). Porus lost many of his troops, among them two sons, and the meeting between
victor and vanquished left an impression on the victor: “Never had he seen a man show such
dignity in adversity” (Benoist-Mechin, 110).
The unpopular assimilation policy regarding the cultures became a crisis when the troops
rebelled twice: at the river Hyphasis (Bosworth 132), and at Opis in the summer of 324 B.C.
The first time, the men refused to cross the river because of utter exhaustion; Coenus, speaking
for them, expounded their cause by demanding a halt. Alexander angrily retired to his tent
(ibid.), but gave in to his troops and ordered the army to turn around. He ordered sacrifices to ask
the gods’ advice, which was negative (Lipsius 200). But when the army moved, “Alexander . . .
stayed with the rear guard, as though he could not bear to tear himself away from a landscape
which he would never see again. A page in his life had been turned. He chatted about this and
that with Hephaestion, but his casual terms deceived no one” (Benoist-Mechin 119).
The revolt at Opis concerned emotions of betrayal (Bosworth 160). By this time, Coenus had
died (ibid.). Alexander, having tired of the complaining of his Macedonians, reminded them
what his father and he had done for them, then ordered them home:
Very well then, Go! And when you get home, tell the people that your king, Alexander. .
. who scaled the Caucasus; who crossed the Oxus, the Jaxartes, and the Indus, which only
Dionysus had reached before him – as well as the Hydaspes, the Aeschines, and the
Hyphasis, and who would have crossed the Hyphasis with you, had you not prevented
him; . . . whose fleet opened the ocean route from the Indus to Persia – that this king you
deserted and left to the protection of the defeated barbarians! (Benoist-Mechin 175)
He then sulked in his tent as his hero Achilleus had done. The men, with the old cavalry
commander Callines assuming the role of the dead Coenus, retorted that their complaints had to

5. do not with endless warfare but with the King making Persians his “kinsmen,” something he had
not done for his own Macedonians (ibid.). Alexander responded, “I make you all my kinsmen”
(Lipsius 212).
After the two revolts, Alexander sent Craterus home with older veteran troops; “Craterus.
. . had been most outspoken in defense of Macedonian tradition, and, like Parmenion, had been
kept regularly from court. . . “ (Bosworth 161). The king believed strongly in his policy; whoever
could not accept that would be dismissed. What could move him to do this to fellow
Macedonians who had come so far with him?
The epitaph of Cyrus, Plutarch relates, moved Alexander with simple dignity. It read:
O Man, whosoever thou art, and from whencesoever thou comest (for I know thou wilt
come), I am Cyrus, founder of the Persian Empire; do not grudge me this little earth
which covers my body (Plutarch 292).
The reading “sensibly touched Alexander, filling him with thoughts of the uncertainty
and mutability of human affairs” (ibid.).
Alexander had begun crossing the Hellespont by offering libation at the tomb of Protesilaus, the
Greek who was the first to set foot on Trojan soil and the first to die there (Bosworth 37). He
prayed to avoid that hero’s fate while possessing his boldness; even Achilleus had hesitated at
the prophesy of death for the first Argive soldier setting foot at Troy. By tracing his genealogy to
Achilleus’ son Neoptolemus and Trojan princess Andromache, the young king “was eager to
reconcile the two sides of his lineage” (Bosworth 39). This idea of oikumene (“family-state”;
Historia Terrarum) foreshadowed later fact and was responsible for Alexander’s celebrated
multiple marriage ceremony at Susa. Alexander, having just seen the final resting place of Cyrus,
wanted to “unite the two nations by the communication of children” (Benoist-Mechin 146). He
himself wed the daughter of Darius III; her sister he gave to Hephaestion; her cousin he gave to

6. Craterus (ibid., 47). The mixture in bloodlines would become a precursor to the mixture of
cultures necessary to hold the empire together. Had he not told the mother of Darius III, when
she mistook the taller Hephaestion for the king, she was not to worry, for "He is another
Alexander"? Aristotle had defined a friend as another self, and now his alter ego would have
children that were cousins to his.
This idealism was not embraced by his two most senior generals, Antipater and Parmenion. The
former was left at home as regent for most of the king’s reign, while the latter was assassinated
on charges of conspiracy, with his son Philotas (Lipsius 79). Parmenion and Alexander disagreed
philosophically; the old general always urged caution, the king heard none of it, rooted as it was
in an older system unsympathetic to youthful boldness. Antipater, also growing old, was judged
to be past his effectiveness. They were both of the generation of Philip II; therefore Alexander’s
new ecumenical attitude was not shared by them.
At any rate, Antipater “did not respond immediately. Instead he sent his eldest son, Cassander, to
court” (Bosworth, 162). Alexander coolly received him into camp, but the atmosphere of the
camp became despondent when Hephaestion died at Ecbatana, to which the army had marched
(Plutarch 294).
Hephaestion had been one of the king’s closest intimates; his grief did not wane upon crucifixion
of Hephaestion’s unfortunate physician, shearing the manes of all mules and horses, razing the
temple of Asclepius, or prohibition of all music in camp, according to Plutarch (294).
Alexander learned many lessons from many people. Aristotle gave him curiosity for the
unknown. Darius III had shown him what it was like to be king of kings. Cyrus II had
posthumously reminded him of mortality. Porus, the Indian who so nearly defeated him at the
Hydaspes, had shown him “dignity in adversity” (Benoist-Mechin 110). But it was Hephaestion

7. who gave Alexander friendship – philos. He embodied Aristotle’s admonition to have “excellent
friends” (Ethics ix, 1170b15). Just as Achilleus never thought of death until it held Patroclus in
its inexorable grasp, so too Alexander never considered his future. Not even the message of
Cyrus II had such an effect; as great as he was, Cyrus was not divine, while Alexander thought
he was. Had not the sacred Oracle of Delphi proclaimed, “My son, thou art invincible” (Plutarch
238)? How could death have power over the son of the god of Delphi, Apollo, himself son of
Zeus?
After a long period of mourning for Hephaestion, the army went to Babylon
(Benoist-Mechin 220). The king undertook various explorations of the area (ibid.); he listened
with interest to his childhood friend, admiral Nearchus, explain what discoveries his fleet had
made near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Meanwhile, at the Babylonian palace, a stranger
calling himself Dionysus seated himself on the vacated throne. The King ordered him taken
away for execution, but the omen was not missed (Benoist-Mechin 222). Plutarch relates that
Seleucus and some other generals went to the temple of Serapis for divine assistance; none was
forthcoming. The king felt surrounded by enemies. Antipater’s sons, Cassander and Iolaus, the
latter being cupbearer to the king, became incarnations of terror to him (Plutarch 296). Also,
Nearchus had heard of ominous warnings that the march to Babylon be postponed (ibid. 295).
Hephaestion’s replacement, Perdiccas, discreetly disobeyed Alexander’s order for two
huge funeral monuments, one for Philip II, to be constructed on a scale similar to the Great
Pyramid in Egypt, and one for Alexander III (Bosworth 164).
Alexander spent his final days in the palace of King Nebuchadnezzar (Bosworth 172); rumors of
poising ran throughout the city, with Cassander and Iolaus suspected (Bosworth 170).
His generals carved the empire amongst themselves. Ptolemy took Egypt; Antigonus ruled Asia

8. Minor; Antipater retained Macedonia. Media was divided between Python and Atropates while
Archon obtained Babylonia. Eumenes received Cappadocia, and Lysimachus took Thrace
(Benoist-Mechin 229). Most of the men already governed their provinces as satraps;
significantly, this idea was borrowed from Cyrus and Darius I (Bosworth 229).
Perdiccas was appointed overall commander of the army, with Seleucus in charge of the
cavalry and Meleager the infantry; Cassander was given command of the foreign contingents,
and Craterus “became intendant-general of the empire” (Benoist-Mechin 228).
The proclaimed king of Macedon was Arrhidaeus, who was given the name Philip III; he
was an imbecilic paternal half-brother of Alexander and would die in 317 B.C., the same year as
his guardian, Antipater (Bosworth 174).
The king’s posthumous son, Alexander IV, an infant who ruled with Philip III, was
assassinated in 310 B.C. by none other than Cassander (Bosworth 174). The generals Antigonus,
Seleucus, and Ptolemy proclaimed themselves Kings in Macedon, Asia, and Egypt, respectively
(Historia Terrarum, iv, 4). Alexander’s idea of ecumenism died with him. Antigonus I held the
land from the Aegean to the Euphrates, and Seleucus I from there to India (Bosworth 176). The
only generals who sought to pursue Alexander’s dream of oikumene were Antigonus I and his
son Demetrius I Poliorcetes; they were defeated by Seleucus I and Lysimachus with elephants
gained from Porus after the battle of Hydaspes, in 301 B.C. at the cataclysmic battle of Ipsus
(Benoist-Mechin 244).
Most of the Seperatist Kings, in imitation of Alexander, styled themselves as offspring of
divinities; Seleucus I Nicator “claimed Apollo as his heavenly father,” and Ptolemy I Soter (the
epithet means “savior”) became son of the demigod Heracles (Bosworth 177).
With Alexander lying in state in Alexandria, Egypt, his “body and name were being used

9. to underwrite a regime whose very existence would have been anathema to him” (Bosworth
180). The various kings rejected the idea of oikumene altogether, preferring individual
monarchies. The monarchy would no longer be cemented by culture. Alexander had predicted
this when, on his deathbed, he was asked to whom the empire would be left. The dying king
answered, “To the strongest” (Lipsius 210). Too late had he planned for the future of his
kingdom. War, not oikumene, would now decide its fate.

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. by Terence Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1985.
Benoist-Mechin, Jacques. Alexander the Great. New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1966.
Bosworth, A. B. Conquest and Empire: the Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge University
Press, 1988.
Hamilton, J. R. Alexander the Great. University of Pittsburgh Press, 1974.
“Historia Terrarum.” Burnam W. Reynolds, ed. Professor Press Ltd., 1990.
Lipsius, Frank. Alexander the Great. New York: Saturday Review Press, 1974.
Plutarch. Twelve Lives. Trans. by John Dryden. Cleveland: Fine Editions Press, 1950