Aristobulus, more than a biographer

Aristobulus of Cassandreia has been listed among the many biographers of Alexander the Great (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander’s life), but he was far more than that. He did not hold any military function in Alexander’s army. Consequently, not being involved allowed him to approach the events as an onlooker. 

He must have been a tough guy since he survived the hardships of Alexander’s campaigns, including the march through the Gedrosian Desert. He seems to have lived to be over ninety years old. 

When he was 83, he began writing his book about the exploits of Alexander from the early days of his kinship to his death. He was blessed with an excellent memory, being able to recall so many events, novelties, and details! Apparently, his book was finished at about the same time as Ptolemy and Cleitarchus published theirs, 285-283 BC. Unfortunately, most of his work is lost. We only have a few scraps together with his observations recorded and used later by Arrian and Strabo. 

We may assume that Aristobulus’ accounts were exact and reliable. He had a wide field of interest and investigated the land, the animals, the many peoples he encountered, the public buildings, and other construction works. Alexander’s military campaign was not his priority. 

He is best known as the engineer/ architect in charge of restoring Cyrus’ Tomb in Pasargadae, a serious responsibility that clearly shows how much Alexander trusted his capabilities. 

Aristobulus, however, was mainly a geographer. He spent much time analyzing and describing the fauna and flora he encountered, the rainfall and the Indian monsoon (whose arrival he recorded in Taxila), the rivers, and the different climates. He drew an in-depth comparison between India and Egypt, including their environment. He analyzed the river courses, placing them in a broader context as trade routes throughout Central Asia and Punjab. 

The Oxus (see: Crossing the Oxus River), for instance, was the longest river, he said, that was navigable and used to transport goods from India to the Caspian Sea. Another river that caught his attention was the Polytimetus (see: Alexander's march to Maracanda) in Sogdiana, which did not flow into another river or a sea, but petered out in the desert. 

On the other hand, fragments of Aristobulus’ text on plants have been preserved. He tells us how rice was cultivated in beds in the backwaters and that the plants were 1.75 meters tall. He said that since each plant had several ears, the harvests were plentiful, adding that the grains had to be hulled. 

The geographer also spent ink on the importance of Alexander’s visit to Siwah. Unlike fellow biographers of the king, Aristobulus detailed Alexander’s route. Ptolemy stated that Alexander headed directly for Memphis. Aristobulus, instead, wrote that the king left from Paraetonium and followed the Mediterranean for about 290 kilometers before turning south to Siwah. On the way back, Alexander founded the city of Alexandria. This implies that he returned over the same route as the one used on his outward journey. Again, this is the version of events as copied by Arrian.

We know very little about Aristobulus’ fascinating personality, but he is one of the rare authors who draws an overwhelmingly positive picture of Alexander. He depicts him as a righteous king, concerned about justice and not making hasty decisions. Another of his remarkable declarations is that Alexander was not a heavy drinker but liked to spend time with his companions, toying with his drink. That is a far cry from the many statements or hearsay statements depicting Alexander as a heavy drinker and even that the wine led to his premature death in Babylon! 

Aristobulus rightfully declares that Alexander was under the protection of the gods. Nowadays, we would say that he was born under a lucky star. Why not?

Eyewitness accounts of Alexander’s life

Alexander's life and exploits are best known to us from the leading ancient historians, Arrian of Nicomedia, Diodorus Siculus, Curtius Rufus, and Plutarch. Their works, however, were written several centuries after the king's death and based mainly on books that are now mostly lost. 

Since these authors used a different source or a combination of the available material, we ended up having different versions of the same story, which, in turn, can be interpreted individually. 

The oldest eyewitness account was written by Anaximenes of Lampsacus, who lived from c. 380 until 320 BC. It is highly probable that his On Alexander, which included the Battle of Issus and more, was published during Alexander's lifetime. After all, he accompanied the king to Persia. Except for some fragments, the book is lost. Upon the invitation of Philip II, Anaximenes lived at the Royal Court of Pella and wrote the king's history, Philippica.  

Callisthenes of Olynthus (c.360 – c.327 BC) was a nephew of Aristotle, upon whose recommendation he was appointed to become Alexander's Court historian. He accompanied the king to Asia, where he kept the official records of Alexander's expeditions. Around 330 BC, he wrote his Deeds of Alexander up to the Battle of Gaugamela or possibly the death of Darius in 330 BC. In 327 BC, Callisthenes was implicated in a conspiracy to assassinate Alexander. He was imprisoned and died seven months later. Except for a few fragments, the book is lost. 

Ptolemy, undoubtedly the best-known eyewitness, wrote his account between 320 and 283 BC. Ptolemy had grown up at Philip's court and became one of Alexander's generals to join him on his Asian campaign. As a result, his book covered the entire reign of Alexander, particularly from the military point of view. Arrian widely used Ptolemy's history, which he thought was very trustworthy. Unfortunately, this account is also lost, except for fragments. After Alexander's death, Ptolemy became king of Egypt and founded the Ptolemaic dynasty that ended with Cleopatra VII in 30 BC. 

Very shortly after Alexander's death, Nearchus of Crete wrote his Indike about his Indian campaigns. Nearchus had been with Alexander from the beginning. As the king's admiral, he would have led the fleet to the Gates of Heracles – a plan that never materialized. Only fragments of this book have reached us; it is otherwise lost (see: The Ephemerides of Alexander's Expedition by C.A. Robinson). 

Onesicritus, Alexander's helmsman sailing down the Indus, also wrote a now-lost book, How Alexander was educated, shortly after the king's death. A philosopher himself, he presented Alexander as such. Onesicritus was often in competition with Nearchus, and his book had a reputation for not being reliable. Few fragments survived (see: The Ephemerides of Alexander's Expedition by C.A. Robinson). 

After Alexander's death, his chamberlain Chares also wrote an eyewitness account, Histories of Alexander. He covered the later years of Alexander's reign. This book is lost, except for some fragments. 

Aristobulus of Cassandreia, in turn, covered the entire reign of Alexander in a kind of autobiography. The book, whose title is unknown, was written shortly after the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. Except for some fragments, it is lost. Aristobulus was one of the king's engineers and was put in charge of restoring Cyrus' tomb in Pasargadae. 

The most essential account was the Ephemerides, the Royal Diaries, the 'official' daily report that Eumenes of Cardia supposedly kept. He was appointed Alexander's personal secretary after having served Philip previously. There are serious doubts about the authenticity of these Royal Diaries because rumors circulate that the original document was later rewritten. Instead of having a book from Alexander's lifetime, it may well have become a forgery of a later date. The original is lost, except for fragments. The Ephemerides led to the Alexander Romance. 

The oldest known version of the Alexander Romance dates probably from the 3rd century AD, and its author is unknown, although it has been attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes. The name has nothing to do with the Callisthenes mentioned above, who died before Alexander. The earliest version of the Romance was composed in Alexandria shortly after Alexander's death and related the story of his life, spiced with many fantastic tales that never happened. Over the centuries, the Romance was translated, truncated, embellished, and circulated throughout Europe and Asia. 

This list is incomplete; we know many other authors only by name. Their work is all lost, except for fragments or quotes by other historians. 

It is hard to believe that so few would have written about Alexander's exploits among the thousands of rulers, philosophers, generals, artists, and even ordinary soldiers who met him. The Persians and the Indians certainly shared their encounter with Alexander, yet barely any such documents surfaced until recently.

The hard reality is that even fragments of writing from Alexander's lifetime have survived. The most famous man in history would have disappeared had it not been for men like Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch.

Alexander's projects and future plans, including his conquest of the West, are also largely neglected. Yet every single one is worth mentioning, which I did in a separate post: Alexander’s missed voyage to conquer the West.

[Papyrus from Macedonian Archaeology Quota]

Latest update 30 January 2025

What do we know about Arrian of Nicomedia?

Although Arrian is quoted repeatedly by many historians, ancient and modern alike, we don’t know precisely when he was born or died. He lived during the reign of two great emperors, Trajan and Hadrian when the Roman Empire experienced its most remarkable expansion.

He was a versatile man and prolific writer, but he was a historian most of all. How he found the time to pen down his many books besides pursuing a military career, holding public offices, and becoming a famous philosopher is commendable. 

Arrian, whose full name was Lucius Flavius Arrianus, was born in Nicomedia (modern Izmit, Turkey), a province of Bithynia ruled by Rome. Consequently, he probably was a Roman citizen. He grew up in an aristocratic family, was well-educated, and held the post of governor of Cappadocia from approximately 131 until 137 AD. Since the culture in Asia Minor was still very Greek, he grew up with this dual identity making him a true Graeco-Roman. 

Arrian was the perfect person to write about Alexander the Great having such a background. With his upbringing in Nicomedia, he realized that Alexander left behind so much Greek culture (he didn’t use the word Hellenistic!) He absorbed it all, even though he looked at it from a Roman perspective several centuries later. 

As a young man, c.108 AD, he moved to Nicopolis, Greece (earlier in Epirus), to stay with Epictetus. Epictetus considered philosophy a way of life, meaning that whatever happened was beyond our control, and we should accept events as they unfolded. His main philosophy was self-knowledge, similar to the Delphic maxim, know thyself. These wise words were visible in the pronaos of the Temple of Apollo in Delphi and were spread by Aeschylus, Socrates, and Plato. It is unknown whether Epictetus based his thoughts on this inscription, as no writings from his hand have survived. It was Arrian who wrote down Epictetus’ lectures in his Discourses of Epictetus and Enchiridion. 

The philosopher considerably influenced Arrian’s education and introduced him to important political people. The most notable figure probably was the later Emperor Hadrian – himself a pupil of Epictetus - whom he befriended in 126 AD. Hadrian appointed Arrian to the Roman Senate around 130 AD and promoted him to the governor of Cappadocia about a year later. During his governorate, he successfully stopped the invasion of the Alani in 135 AD. This was when Arrian documented his victory by writing his Ectaxis contra Alanos (Order of Battle against the Alans), which provides us with a unique insight into the Roman army in action that still bore “the stamp of Macedon.” Aware of the difference between the Macedonian and Roman phalanx, Arrian drew parallels between them. He underscored that the phalanx was not something of the past but still an active weapon in the contemporary military. His military career took him to many countries away from his native Bithynia, where he saw very different animals and plants from his familiar homeland. 

Arrian’s military career probably started earlier as he led an army to the Caspian Gates during Emperor Trajan's rule (98-117 AD). As governor of Cappadocia, Arrian commanded two Roman legions, which was when he wrote his Ars Tactica (The Tactical Arts). Experiencing the strategies and maneuvers firsthand, he described cavalry tactics and praised military innovations. In both Ectasis and Tactica, he mixed Greek and Roman military theories.

Arrian has a great interest in geography and a keen eye for details. Under Hadrian, he wrote the Periplus of the Euxine Sea (Sailing around the Black Sea) to inform the emperor about the region he considered exploring. Besides helpful information about ports, rivers, and cities, he included specific details about the viability and the landscapes. In his Cynegeticus, which is an addition to Xenophon’s work, he stated, for instance, that Mysia (northwest Turkey), Dacia (mainly all of present Romania), Scythia, and Illyricum (the greater Balkans) had plains that were “adapted for riding.” 

Clearly, our historian started writing at a very young age. However, many of his works are lost or only survived fragmentary, leaving us with titles alone. Besides the titles already mentioned above, he wrote:

- Biographies like Lives of Dion, Timoleon, and Tillorobus

- several volumes dedicated to his homeland, the Bithyniaca

- a history of the Parthians, the Parthica

- a history of the Alans, Historia Alanica

- an essay on maneuvers, On Infantry Exercises

- an essay about astronomy, On Nature, Composition, and Appearances of Comets

- And, most interestingly, a volume focusing on the events after the death of Alexander, The History of the Successors – sadly lost to humanity forever! Imagine the twists history could take if we had this book!

When or where exactly Arrian wrote his famous Anabasis or The History of the Wars and Conquests of Alexander the Great remains obscure. It is generally accepted as his most outstanding work, together with the Indica addendum about India. With these two books, Arrian is, to this day, our most precious and reliable source about Alexander. The historian could project his own military experiences and campaigns into his vision of Alexander. Arrian also had a profound fascination with Persia and Persian customs, which he lavishly shares in his Anabasis. 

Notably, he could rely on several sources, from first-rank witnesses to Alexander’s campaigns. These were generals and close Companions who had access to Alexander’s Royal Journal – men like Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Megasthenes. Another precious source was Eratosthenes, a librarian at the rich Library of Alexandria. Aristobulus also served under Alexander and later wrote a history of Alexander, including careful observations on geography, ethnography, and natural science. Aristobulus’ notes about which plants grew in specific regions of the lands Alexander conquered were vital because it gives us a glimpse of Alexander’s knowledge of plants and animals based on Aristotle’s lessons. 

It is still being determined what happened to Arrian at the end of his governorship in Cappadocia in 137 AD. Still enjoying the favors of Hadrian, he most probably became governor of Syria between 135 and 150 AD.

Towards the end of his life, he moved to Athens, where he became archon probably in 145 or 146 AD. Other sources, however, state that Arrian retired to Nicomedia, where he was appointed priest to Demeter and Persephone. 

Arrian died some time during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, 121-180 AD, who was the last of the so-called good emperors. 

Witnessing how meticulous and objective Arrian proceeds in his Anabasis to describe Alexander’s campaigns, not only the sieges and the battlefields but also the geography and the nature and habits of the people, it is easy to realize how much information is lost in his other works.

Who decided on the mummification of Alexander?

Alexander’s death in Babylon and the cause of his death have been discussed before (see: A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander the Great). This time, I would like to concentrate on his embalmment. 

Arrian does not mention what happened after Alexander’s death since the accounts of both Ptolemy and Aristobulus stopped at this point. However, he adds a splendid eulogy to the greatness of Alexander. Diodorus follows the same idea, stating that “He accomplished greater deeds than any, not only of the kings who had lived before him but also of those who were to come later down to our time.” 

Only Curtius’ history continues describing the mourning in the streets of Babylon by friend and foe, the earliest rivalry between the generals, and all kinds of intrigues that followed the king’s death. He is the only one to mention that Alexander lay unattended for seven days before his friends reentered the room. So much for a “friend,” right? He reports how his body did not show any sign of decay despite the Babylonian heat. As a result, the Egyptians and Chaldeans, "who were ordered” to care for the body, hesitated to handle it. It is only after they prayed to their gods for approval that “they emptied his body of entrails.” He goes on by saying that the gold coffin was filled with perfumes, yet nothing about the honey that covered Alexander’s body as seen by those who paid their respects to him years later in Alexandria. 

Several questions arise after reading these accounts. Curtius, for instance, is the only one to tell us about the widespread quarrel among the generals and troops alike (not yet about the matter of succession) and about the decision to embalm Alexander’s body. Plutarch casually remarks that the body remained unattended for several days. 

What transpires is that nobody stayed at Alexander’s bedside after he was declared dead. It is baffling and truly unacceptable vis-à-vis the King of Macedonia, the King of Kings, to be left without a single soul at his side to mourn him? Macedonia must have had a set procedure for treating the deceased king. Persia undoubtedly had a very ancient court protocol for such occasions! Yet, Alexander was left alone and unattended. Incredible! 

About a week later, the king’s entourage seemed to remember that their king was dead and required burial of some kind. According to Curtius, who appears the only source on this matter, “Egyptians and Chaldeans were ordered to care for the body.” Nobody says who issued such an order. The priests certainly would not act on their own to handle the remains of the King of Kings, the most powerful man of the world! Was there any discussion about the procedure and the choice of a funeral? 

In Macedonia, a king would be cremated on a fancy pyre, as was done for King Philip and even applied for Hephaistion. What did the Persian tradition prescribe? I suppose a burial since the Tomb of Cyrus contained his bodily remains, although we don’t know if the corpse had been embalmed or not. In ancient Mesopotamia, everything indicates that they buried the bodies in the earth since, according to their creation myth, Ea (Enki) had created humans out of the earth's soil. So they naturally 'return' the body to the earth once the person has died. However, in Alexander’s case, the priests “emptied his body of entrails,” which indicates an Egyptian tradition. 

How, then, was it decided that Alexander should be mummified? His body was originally to return to Macedonia. The royal tradition was that their lineage would simply die if the king was not buried in his homeland. At this stage, there were no known plans to bring the king’s corpse to Egypt at all. So, maybe it was decided to keep his body in good condition until it reached Macedonia, which actually meant years later. The only people of authority present in Babylon were Alexander’s generals, who seem, however, to have been more occupied with their own importance in the wake of their king’s death than with the proper burial – or any burial at all for that matter. 

I cannot imagine Perdiccas suggesting mummification, or Nearchus, or any other commander present, except maybe Ptolemy. At a very early stage, he had decided to take Egypt as his share. Not only that, but there were rumors that Ptolemy may have been an illegitimate son of Philip, making him Alexander’s half-brother. This has never been established, but the relationship was a public secret. At this stage, Ptolemy may have carried more weight than the other generals to suggest mummification. He will, however, have been careful not to disclose his secret plan to take Alexander to Egypt. Who knows? 

Another possibility is that the commanders were still fighting each other and had not decided where to bury their king despite leaving him unattended for about a week. The obvious place was Macedonia, but Babylon as the new capital of Alexander’s Empire may have been another candidate. Pending a final decision, it was wise to embalm the body to preserve it the best they could. 

But who performed the embalming on so short a notice? It is highly improbable that priests could have been summoned so quickly from Egypt. Maybe Alexander had some Egyptian doctors or priests in his entourage? That is not as far-fetched as it appears because at the time of the moon eclipse, shortly before the Battle of Gaugamela, when the army was wildly panicking, we know some Egyptian priests were present. They had told Alexander and his Macedonians that this was only an astronomical phenomenon - and hence, nothing to be worried about. This shows that he had kept Egyptian priests with him already then. These priests most certainly were familiar with the religious embalming process and able to preserve Alexander’s body for the long journey home. 

Craftsmen from across the empire created an unsurpassed funerary golden catafalque. Alexander’s preserved body was placed inside a gold sarcophagus inlaid with precious stones. It was covered with a purple funerary pall embroidered with gold, on top of which lay his armor and Trojan shield. After two years of careful and intense work, the shrine was ready, and the funeral cortege left Babylon for Pella.

As we know, the cortege never reached Macedonia since Ptolemy seized the catafalque in Syria and took it to Egypt. As the city of Alexandria was not yet entirely built, Alexander’s sarcophagus was temporarily kept in Memphis. We owe it to Ptolemy’s son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, to give Alexander his last resting place in his Alexandria. 

In the following centuries, the tomb was visited by many Roman emperors till it disappeared from history. That was between the mid-3rd century and the last quarter of the 4th century AD.

Historical truth and legends surrounding Alexander

In his lifetime, Alexander was a living legend. As he marched ever further eastward, his impact was told and retold over the centuries to the extent that nobody, in the end, knew where reality stopped and legend started. Today’s travelers will easily meet locals ready to share their tales or direct them toward the routes the conqueror followed more than two thousand years ago.

It is quite remarkable that the most prominent figure in history left us with almost no contemporary documents. As a comparison, Julius Caesar, who lived some three hundred years after Alexander, managed to put down detailed accounts of his campaigns. His best-known books are The Conquest of Gaul and The Civil Wars, whereas The African Wars, The Alexandrian Wars, and the Hispanic Wars are also attributed to him.

The results for Alexander are very meager. Among his historians, we count his royal secretary, Eumenes of Cardia, and the keeper of his official diary, Callisthenes of Olynthus. As contemporary authors of Alexander, we may also include Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus, and Onesicritus, who participated in his campaigns and lived the events firsthand. Despite these apparent sources, only a few fragments have survived, no matter how deep we dig.

Callisthenes inspired Onesicritus as well as Cleitarchus. Cleitarchus turned out to be the key figure for many historians to rely on. He, in fact, had access to earlier accounts by Nearchus, Ephippus, Polycleitus, Megasthenes, and Aristobulus (who also drew from Onesicritus himself).

Under these circumstances, it becomes obvious that we have sources that are very much truncated over the centuries. In the 1^st century BC, Diodorus of Sicily wrote his history of Alexander based directly on Cleitarchus. Curtius Rufus, in the 1^st century AD, composed his version of the events, leaning heavily on Cleitarchus and to a lesser extent on Trogus and Ptolemy. Shortly afterward, Plutarch made headlines with his Lives using, besides Cleitarchus, Aristobulus, Chares (who was in charge of Alexander’s journal), and remaining bits of the official Ephemerides that were kept by Eumenes. Arrian, in the 2nd century AD, seems to be our most reliable source. For his Anabasis, he mainly trusted Ptolemy. However, he also consulted other historians like Aristobulus, Megasthenes, Nearchus (who himself wrote Indica to recount his sea voyage from India back to Persia), and the surviving  texts of the Ephemerides as well. It should be noted that Trogus’ book is almost entirely lost, but his story has been summarized, not all too well, by Justin two hundred years later.

This is quite a cocktail of information, and it becomes very hard to sift through so many versions and interpretations of the facts and figures.

In my quest to find the sources, I came across an extensive list of lost works on Wikipedia that I insert hereafter. I added the appropriate dates as far as I could find them.

Life of Alexander by Aesopus (no dates found)

Works of Anaximenes of Lampsacus (ca. 380-320 BC)

Works of Aristobulus of Cassandreia (ca. 375-301 BC)

Geographical work of Androsthenes of Thasos (one of Alexander’s admirals who sailed with Nearchus)

Deeds of Alexander by Callisthenes (the official historian)

Personal Notebooks, or Hypomnemata, by Alexander himself (possibly inauthentic)

History of Alexander by Cleitarchus (4^th century BC)

On the Empire of the Macedonians by Criton of Pieria (2^nd century AD)

Histories (also listed as Macedonica and Hellenica) by Duris of Samos (350-after 281 BC)

Ephemerides (royal journal) of the royal secretary Eumenes (existence or authenticity disputed)

Work of Ephippus of Olynthus

Work of Hagnothemis upon which Plutarch rested the belief that Antipater poisoned Alexander.

Work of Hieronymus of Cardia (354?-250 BC)

On the education of Alexander and Macedonian history by Marsyas of Pella (ca. 356-ca. 294 BC)

Work of Medius of Larissa (general under Alexander and senior commander under Antigonus Monophthalmus)

Work of Nearchus, the primary source of Arrian's Indica

How Alexander was Educated and geographical works by Onesicritus (ca. 360-ca. 290 BC)

Work of Ptolemy I Soter (ca. 367-282 BC)

History of Alexander by Timagenes (1^st century BC)

Historiae Philippicae by Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus (1^st century BC)

This list cannot be exhaustive. There must have been many more documents. Nobody mentions, for instance, Alexander’s correspondence with his mother and his sister, with Aristotle, with Antipater in Macedonia, with Queen Ada, and Queen Sisygambis. Letters were exchanged with the many embassies that contacted him or came to visit him. The entire world evolved around Alexander, and strangely enough, there is not a single document left to prove it. The famous  Library of Alexandria must have held scores of such precious testimonies. Besides, the later Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Empires most certainly produced literature of their own. 

We do have, of course, the Alexander Romance (see: Le Roman d’Alexandre, traduit du grec par A Tallet-Bonvalot). The oldest known version dates probably from the 3rd century AD, and its author is unknown, although it has been attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes. This document is generally called version α and served for all subsequent accounts that were published on a more or less regular basis until the 16^th century. They were written in Latin, Greek, Armenian, Georgian, Persian, Hebrew, Arabic, Islamic, French, English, Italian, Spanish, Hungarian, Romanian, German, Ethiopic, Mongolian, and several medieval patois. Useless to say that each translation or interpretation contributed to embellishing the legendary person of Alexander.

Historians generally agree that Pseudo-Callisthenes based his tales on the writings of Onesicritus, who used Callisthenes.

The legends about Alexander are endless, and a great many of them have not been put in writing. They are part of the oral tradition of many peoples. They were told and retold by traveling bards over the centuries, and we can still find those tales today in the countries crossed by Alexander.

From the top of my head, I remember the story about the Prison of Alexander in Yazd, Iran (see: Alexander’s Prison?), and that of his general Farhangi-Sarhang in Nur, Uzbekistan (see: Sogdian Forts and Alexander Fort in Nurata).

There is also the later tale of Alexander Rex, which is part of the mosaic in the church of Otranto in southern Italy (see: Alexander's presence in Magna Graecia). Or Saint Alexander depicted in Byzantine and Orthodox art, appearing in the 12th-century Church of S. Demetrius in Vladimir, Ukrainian Kiev. Around the 15^th and 16^th centuries, Alexander became a symbol of vanity. Several churches in Greece display frescoes of monks who meditate on vanity while gazing down on Alexander’s body at their feet. For instance, at the church of St John the Baptist in the Peloponnese and at the Monastery of the Holy Trinity at the Meteora (see: Alexander, from hero to saint).

The references to Alexander are endless, and I am talking mainly about written documentation here. His legacy in architecture, paintings, statues, coins, jewelry, and other decorative elements constitutes another fascinating testimony of Alexander to the world

Updated 24 May 2025