Alexander the Great in historiography

When Alexander historians all ancient authors, the historical works about the life of the Macedonians of Alexander the Great King shall have written. However, most of these works are not or only partially passed on to us. The few ( more or less completely ) received Alexander stories have emerged with some temporal distance to the described events in them.

Basically, the Alexander historians can be divided into two groups:

• Main starting point of most Alexander stories ( whether directly or indirectly ) focused mainly on the work of Callisthenes of Olynthus be the exception may have been Anaximenes of Lampsacus, which today lost Alexander story was probably also written during the campaign. Callisthenes was the official court historians of Alexander, who took part in the campaign and successively published his work, but was executed 327 BC. The work of Callisthenes probably treated the time to 330 BC and had a great influence on all subsequent historian Alexander; it was also of Kleitarchos (see below ) is used, but also recovered oral traditions. Furthermore, this tradition is based on the stories of Alexander and Aristobulus of Kassandreia of Ptolemy. Both had participated in the campaign, unlike, say, Kleitarchos. Ptolemy was even a close companion of Alexander and later King of Egypt; Ptolemy also possibly had access to official documents firm (ephemeris ), but this is controversial. All of these works, in which Alexander was considered very positive, are lost today, but Ptolemy and Aristobulus, both of Arrian were used, who made an Alexander story in the 2nd century AD.

• Secondly, the authors of the so-called Vulgatatradition be mentioned that especially the dramatic novelistic aspects of Alexander's life gave heed, therefore, but sometimes are not very reliable. In the Vulgatatradition Alexander is also quite negative assessment of what an interesting counterpart to the "good sources " offers ( see above). The Vulgatatradition goes ultimately back to the Kleitarchos already mentioned, the now lost work of many later authors served as a source, such as Diodorus, Quintus Curtius Rufus (which was much read in the Middle Ages ) and Pompeius Trogus, which is present only in the summary of Junianus Justinus. The work of Kleitarchos was the most popular ancient Alexander history precisely because of the dramatized presentation. To Vulgatatradition is also the Metz Epitome expected. Even Plutarch made ​​use of when you compose his biography of Alexander, already due to its approach, rather from the source material that historians, though not exclusively; as can be found in Plutarch also reports that most are based on the "good sources ". Thus Plutarch takes a certain intermediate position.

Apparently circulated soon after Alexander's death reports in which his life was dramatized shown and which were embellished novel-like (see the above-mentioned authors of the Vulgate, especially Kleitarchos ). Arrian, however, has engaged in a rudimentary critical review of the material at least. Although he has not achieved this goal in all respects ( as the positive underlying trend regarding Alexander 's obvious ), presents his work of general research opinion still the most reliable Alexander story is that is handed down to us, especially with regard to the event 's history. Nevertheless, in addition also authors such as Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Justin have to be used, especially since these offer some information and opinions that are not found in Arrian and therefore provide a valuable complement to it. The term Vulgate should therefore have no purely negative connotation, though must be critically deal with all sources.

Even in late antiquity numerous reports of Alexander were made, not the few emperors took as a model (Alexander Imitations ). The fragments of ancient Greek authors obtained ( approximately by Chares of Mytilene, Onesicritus or Ephippus of Olynthus ) are collected in the fragments of the Greek historians, with some works about Alexander but only after the name is known ( see, for example Praxagoras of Athens).

The processing of Alexander substance in the Middle Ages, which largely relied on the Alexander Romance (in which the historical reality was distorted hopeless, but enjoyed great popularity until the modern ), is no longer to be understood as history in the true sense. Only in the modern busy again reinforced historian with the Macedon King (starting especially with Johann Gustav Droysen ), the assessment of Alexander in modern research is subject to strong fluctuations.