Saving documents and books in antiquity

Nowadays, saving our documents and information on our computers is very obvious. Before the digital era, we relied on typewriters and printers to distribute our pamphlets, advertisements, letters, and books. 

It is hard to imagine that in antiquity nothing of the kind existed, but then the needs were entirely different. Public information, laws, decrees, and other important notices were inscribed on stone slabs or posted on walls in conspicuous places throughout the city, and eventually shared with other cities.  

Exchanging documents and letters over longer distances, as during Alexander’s campaigns, required writing on papyrus, a lightweight material that could be easily transported. His correspondence with Antipater, Olympias, Aristotle, Sisygambis, governors, and generals all over his ever-growing empire required an active exchange of news and information.

Eumenes and Callisthenes, serving as Alexander’s secretaries, must have been very busy and very organized. We tend to forget that they also kept copies of Alexander’s correspondence, official documents, and perhaps private letters as well. This becomes apparent when Eumenes’ tent went up in flames after a conflict that arose as Nearchus was preparing the fleet to sail the Southern Sea. 

Alexander had exhausted his own treasury and had to borrow money from his friends, including Eumenes, to finance Nearchus’ expedition. His secretary was to contribute 300 talents, but being stingy, he gave only 100 talents. Alexander did not accept Eumenes’ excuse that it was not without difficulty and decided to set his friend’s tent on fire. He expected Eumenes to rush his money out, and thus admit he had been lying. The plan went wrong, and the tent burned down entirely, leaving a clump of smelted gold and silver worth one thousand talents. In the process, Alexander’s archives were reduced to ashes. It is Plutarch who tells us that Alexander asked several governors and generals to send Eumenes copies of the papers that had been destroyed. This proves that Alexander did indeed keep a record of his correspondence! 

We so often read of papers and books that have only partially survived or are only known second-hand or not at all, except for the title. This situation is inherent to the mindset of the time and to the degradation of the natural support used (papyrus). 

Papyrus is a vegetal product and a very practical writing support, but it is also fragile. It has been calculated that papyrus documents had a lifespan of a maximum of one hundred years. This may have suited the needs at the time, but the chances of having them still around two thousand years later are very slim. 

Chances of survival were greater if there were many copies of a text, like, for instance, for theater plays. Yet, professional writers were expensive, and the costs were borne by the author. In Roman times, wealthy citizens could afford to have certain scrolls copied for their own use, but they would hardly survive after the Fall of the Roman Empire. 

Under exceptional conditions, some scrolls or bits of papyrus, however, reached us. The most telling example is the scrolls that survived the fire in Herculaneum after the volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. Only recently have we been able to decipher their content without having to unroll the brittle carbonized scrolls (see: Reading the papyrus scrolls from Herculaneum). 

Another situation developed in Egypt. The garbage dump in Oxyrhynchus that served as fuel to the local population in the 19^th century appeared to contain a huge amount of hitherto unknown papyrus texts ranging from the Ptolemaic era to the Muslim conquests in the 7^th century AD. The papyri consist of private letters and public documents, such as a variety of official correspondence, theater plays, records, sales, wills, and inventories. The deciphering of the papyri is ongoing, as only a handful of scholars are capable of recognizing where the bit of papyrus text belongs. 

When parchment was introduced in the 2^nd century BC, documents stood a better chance of survival, although even animal skins had their limits. However, parchment was extremely expensive to make. 

With the passage of time, interest and taste evolved and changed. Treatises, studies, analyses, and even books and poems went out of fashion and vanished altogether. 

As the writing supports were decaying, it is not surprising that documenting Alexander’s life is a nearly impossible task, despite the second-hand recordings by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, and Plutarch, who could still access some original documents (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander’s life).

[Top picture Derveni papyrus 340 BC, Thessaloniki Museum.
Bottom picture from Archaeology News, Digs & Discoveries] 

Alexander’s Oriental Afterlife

This is the title of one of the many intriguing chapters in Robbert Bosschart’s book “All Alexander’s Women”. Beyond the widespread descriptions of Alexander’s life in our Western literature, the author hunted for Eastern sources. There are two key figures to consider, Ferdowsi and Nizami (see: Timeline of Main Arabic/ Persian Sources writing about Alexander). 

Ferdowsi is a Persian poet from the 10^th century who is still very much revered in Iran today, famous for his Shah-Nama, one of the longest epic poems in the world. It tells the (partially mythical) history of the Persian Empire from its creation until the end of the Sassanid rule in the 7^th century. 

The other prominent figure is Nizami, known as the greatest romantic poet in Persian literature. He lived in the 12^th century and described Alexander as a philosopher king and sage. 

It is not surprising that the Persians looked at Alexander from a very different angle as highlighted by R. Bosschart. Here are a few such examples, excerpts from his book: 

The vast popularity attained by the Alexander Romance over the centuries means that thousands of local storytellers have entertained millions of listeners in countless places with a marvelous or terrifying Alexander, made to measure for the taste of the audience.

But their tales were based on a very limited number of source texts. That is, whatever version of the Life and Deeds they might have heard or read, plus some (snippets of) local literature. For example, the 170 fake Alexander letters that circulated in Egypt from Ptolemaic times; or, in Persia, one of the contradictory Alexanders described in Ferdowsi’s Shah-Nama.

By the time this oral folklore became fixed in writing (a process that took obscure propaganda hacks and famous poets quite some centuries), an astonishing variety of Alexanders were living a fascinating afterlife. Most of them, just as an entertaining or educational sample of literary fantasy; but at least in two cases, with a profound social-political significance.

I am referring to the way in which the storytellers of Egypt and Persia appeased the bad conscience of their patriotic audience over the fact that their nation, with its ages-old, proud civilization, had submitted so meekly or even zealously to that young barbarian Alexander. Their solution was simple: they converted him to a ‘hidden’ son of a respectively Egyptian or Persian monarch, so that he could be welcomed back in ‘his true homeland’ as a liberator with full birthright to the throne.

…

The marriage of the daughter of Persia’s previous king to Alexander is a historical fact. During their negotiations after his first defeat, Darius III tells Alexander he can marry «one of my daughters». Years later, Alexander moreover receives the public approval of queen-mother Sisygambis to marry her granddaughter, the princess Barsine/Stateira.

But in his literary afterlife, the bride always is another princess: the insignificant Roxane, in the multiple versions based on the pseudo-Kallisthenes; or the magnificent, ‘divine’ Buran-dokht in a Persian tradition. However, in all these fantasied romances without exception, the reason why he marries her is the plea of the routed king Darius, who, with his dying breath, asks him to do so.

Only in the Persian version, Darius/Darab adds another petition to his deathbed plea. In Ferdowsi’s Shah-Nama, the routed king whispers in Alexander’s ear: «…Ask for my daughter’s hand in marriage; look after my children, my family, and my veiled wise women».

Who or what these wise women would be —so important that the High King in his last words before his death desperately wants to make sure they will be respected by the future ruler—, Ferdowsi sees no need to explain: he is sure that the (Persian) audience will understand.

This signifies two things. One: that wise women in the age of the Achaemenid empire were highly considered, and their rights were deemed worthy of the maximum protection. And two: as this oral tradition has been created to justify, to the eyes of a Persian audience, events in Alexander’s deeds which they recognized but needed to get explained, it follows that they knew that Alexander had wise Persian women at his side, and respected women’s rights. After all, such national sagas like the Shah-Nama and the Darab-Nama were intended as a reminder so that the Persians would not forget their glorious past.

… we are presented with an Oriental legend. Or rather, an embroidered version of a historic fact known to every Persian in the Achaemenid empire — and to many Jews, who revered Cyrus the Great because he had freed them from slavery in Babylon and sent them home to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem.

The fact is that in 530 BC Cyrus went to war against queen Tomyris of the Massagetai — and lost.

…

Tomyris sends a herald to Cyrus with her message: «Stop this war effort, because you cannot know if in the end it will do you any good. Be content to rule in peace over your own kingdom, and let me reign in mine. But of course, you will refuse my advice».

Cyrus indeed refuses to listen to her wise words, attacks – and dies on the battlefield. Now, it is a well-known theme that Alexander always tries to (and succeeds in) surpassing the feats of Cyrus. So here the Jews —who maintained good relations with Alexander throughout his reign, acting as loyal subjects— award him another victory: Alexander comes out a winner where Cyrus failed.

This is the beginning of a literary tradition – later represented so brilliantly by Nizami’s Iqbal-Nama— that describes Alexander as a philosopher king, Seeker of Knowledge, a sage whose only real aim is to learn wisdom.

...

Persia’s historical memory, as explained by the saga “Darab-Nama”, also remembers Alexander’s decision to promote mass-marriages for the better integration of conquerors and conquered into one realm. This is how the story in this popular saga was told to audiences all over Persia: 

Alexander and his army happen upon an island of women, and thousands of these invade the camp «searching for men». Alexander first suspects that they may be hostile, but soon understands they only want to make love —and then fears that his own men will “go berserk”, causing even worse problems. So he allows his wise chancellor –whose name is given as Plato— to apply a miracle-working solution.

Alexander and his wise chancellor Plato receive queen Sabaterah.

She reigns over an island where only women live, who all want

sex with men. Plato will ensure that they become legal spouses.

(Miniature from a 1720 AD manuscript of the Darab-Nama)

[Graciously shared by Robbert Bosschart]

Plato calls upon the women and asks them: «By the will of God, and so be all the Angels your witnesses, will you give yourselves in legal union to the men that will enter your city?» They agree. The storyteller concludes: «When the women were trying to seduce the men, it was the work of the Devil; but as soon as they were conveniently and legally married, it became God’s work, and Alexander could no longer be held responsible for any problems arising of their arrival».

Clearly, this is a remembrance of the mass-marriages (in reality, the legalization of de facto marriages) that Alexander organised in parallel with his double wedding at Susa in 324 BC. Out of his own purse, as Arrian reports in VII, 4, 8, he paid dowries for the Persian and other Oriental women who had taken up with his officers and soldiers, so they could be legally married. The list totalled some 10,000 dowries, and the classical sources say that Alexander disbursed over 10,000 talents of silver for them; an amount equivalent to 150 million dollars of today. It is understandable that these marriages, converting thousands of concubines into legal wives, left an indelible memory among the Persians.

Just as important was Alexander’s pledge that he would care for their offspring. Arrian notes in passing that he promised his veterans that their children from Oriental partners “will be educated as Macedonians”. But Diodoros tells more: he registers (in his Book XVII, 110, 3) that Alexander has set up a specific fund and appointed the necessary teachers to ensure that the 10,000 children his men have had with “women who were taken in war” will be educated “as is the right of free men”.

In Book XVIII, Diodoros adds that Alexander had decided to apply his integration policy on a much broader scale: «…he intended to establish cities and to transplant populations from Asia to Europe and in the opposite direction from Europe to Asia, in order to bring the largest continents to common unity and to friendly kinship by means of intermarriages and family ties».

Alexander’s intermarriage policy found lasting approval in Persia, as shown by the positive comment in the Darab-Nama on the “miraculous solution” devised by Plato.

For over a thousand years, Persian audiences have been listening again and again to this story in theaters, bazaars, harems and taverns. They must have agreed: after all, no storyteller makes a living by irritating his public.

Another aspect of Alexander’s personality?

Life is full of surprises and Alexander’s life is no exception. Our best sources are extant books by Arrian, Diodorus, Curtius, Plutarch, and Justin, but contemporary documents are far more difficult to find (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander's life). Alexander’s Royal Journals carefully kept by Callisthenes and Eumenes have not survived, except for some rare fragments whose origins cannot be verified with certainty.

Browsing through Robinson’s book, The History of Alexander the Great and the Ephemerides of Alexander’s Expedition, I was intrigued by the few lines that survived Ephippus’ writing. 

Ephippus of Olynthus was a historian and contemporary of Alexander. It is unclear whether this man is the same as Ephippus of Chalcis, mentioned by Arrian as one of the superintendents Alexander installed in Egypt. The reason to link both names is that the city of Olynthus is part of Chalcis. Otherwise, our Ephippus may well have lived at the king’s court or shortly after his death. 

He is known as the author of a lost pamphlet “On the death (or funeral) of Alexander and Hephaistion,” as mentioned by Athenaeus of Naucratis, who lived about the end of the 2^nd/beginning of the 3^rd century AD. The document held an account of the burial of Hephaistion and Alexander as well as of the king’s death. 

Robinson is quoting Athenaeus in several separate issues, shedding a different light on Alexander than what other, usually Greek, sources tell us. 

According to Ephippus, Alexander spent one hundred minas on a dinner with his friends, i.e., sixty or seventy of them. It seems the author is reacting to some critics about Alexander’s expenses compared to those of the Persian king, who spent four hundred talents for his 15,000 invites. Converting the currencies, however, both expenditures come to the same amount per capita.

Another observation made by Ephippus is that the Macedonians never understood how to drink in moderation, but drank a lot of wine at the beginning of a feast. The case of Proteas of Macedonia, who was a sturdy guy, is highlighted because he drank a great deal all his life. Alexander, Ephippus said, once ordered a six-quart cup of wine, and after a drink, toasted Proteas, thereby extending a challenge to him. Proteas took the cup, sang praises to his king, and drank the rest of the wine under the wide applause of those present. A little later, Proteas ordered another such cup, toasted the king, and took a drink. Alexander then (accepting the challenge) took it but could not hold it, falling back on his cushion and dropping the cup from his hands. The king fell ill and died. 

This scene inspired Oliver Stone in his Alexander movie during a scene played in India. However, this is not how the king died, and the text puts serious question marks behind the assumption that Ephippus lived at Alexander's court at the time of his death. The truth about Alexander’s death, for me, lies elsewhere as I discussed on previous occasions (see: A personal approach to the cause of death for Alexander).

Regarding the luxury of Alexander, Ephippus tells us that the king had a golden throne, and couches with silver feet “on which he used to sit and transact business with his companions”. These couches are known from the Susa wedding party, but the link is not made in this text. 

Ephippus continues by stating that Alexander also wore “sacred vestments”, such as the purple robe, cloven sandals, and horns of Ammon as if he were a god. At times, he would imitate Artemis, wearing her dress while driving his chariot. Alexander also had a Persian robe and displayed the bow and javelin of the goddess above his shoulder. Sometimes, he dressed as Hermes, and sitting with his friends, he wore the god’s sandals and the petasus, holding the caduceus in his hand. In everyday use, he would appear wearing a purple riding cloak and a purple tunic with white stripes, and the Macedonian causia holding the royal diadem. Referring to Heracles, Alexander would wear a lion’s skin and carry the god’s club. 

To my own astonishment, Ephippus also says that Alexander used to have the floor sprinkled with perfumes and fragrant wine, while incense and myrrh were burnt in his presence. If this is true, I presume it would happen only while the king resided in one of the Persian palaces? The bystanders are said to remain silent out of fear of his violence, “with no regard for human life.” 

Athenaeus further quotes Ephippus, saying that Alexander arranged a festival for Dionysus at Ecbatana. He does not tell us when this sacrifice occurred but I would assume it was in 324 BC, maybe around the death of Hephaistion. 

The local satrap Satrabates had invited all the troops (just try to picture the scene!) for his lavish feast, and many speeches of praise and flattery were made to impress Alexander. As in Samarkand, some of these praises turned into insolence. However, with the king’s complicity one of his armorers totally went overboard by having the herald announce that he, Gorgus, would shower the son of Ammon with 3,000 gold coins; and whenever Alexander would besiege Athens, he would add 10,000 full suits of armor and as many catapults and other missiles needed for the war. 

Such words clearly illustrate how preposterous and absurd these flatteries of Alexander were! Freedom of speech? 

Shifting through Ephippus' lines, it is difficult and even impossible to determine what is correct and what is not. As always, opinions are divided. Ephippus’ version of the facts is examined in detail by Antony Spawforth in his article The Pamphleteer Ephippus, King Alexander and the Persian Royal Hunt.

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

Taposiris Magna in Egypt

Taposiris Magna has been in the news lately because of the extensive archaeological diggings leading to the theory that this could be the place to find the Tomb of Cleopatra VII. This last Queen of Egypt (see: Cleopatra VII and her children, the last of the Ptolemies) leaves as big a mystery around her ultimate resting place as her distant ancestor, Alexander the Great. Anyway, this riddle has not been solved as yet.

 

Taposiris Magna lies on Egypt's north coast, about halfway between Alexandria and El-Alamein, some 60 km from the center of Alexandria. Nowadays, it falls within the Alexandria Governorate of Egypt. It’s interesting to know that it was on the road to Paraetonium, which Alexander took when he visited Siwah. Callisthenes tells us that Alexander stopped in Taposiris Magna, so we should assume this was an earlier settlement.

[Picture from Heritage Daily. Image Credit : Koantao - CC BY-SA 3.0]

It has been recorded that the city was built by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the son and successor of Ptolemy I, between 280 and 270 BC. It stood on top of a limestone ridge that separates the Mediterranean from the now-dry Lake Mareotis. In Roman times, a channel 50 meters wide was dug out simultaneously as a closed harbor system. To eliminate the silt carried by the Nile, these skilled builders ingeniously added two de-silting openings to the harbor basin. Besides some shops, cisterns, and several private and public buildings, the most significant remains are those of the Temple of Osiris and a lighthouse.

 

The name Taposiris Magna means “the great tomb of Osiris,” which clearly refers to the temple. The theory about the last resting place of Cleopatra VII matured after the discovery of a large necropolis outside the walls. It contains Greco-Roman mummies, which all face the temple. Hence, the link to the presence of royalty within the walls of the temple and, hopefully, of Cleopatra.

 

Further excavations have located the original gate to the Temple of Osiris, including several stones that once lined the entrance. This may be an indication that there was an avenue bordered with sphinxes as customary at the time the Pharaohs ruled Egypt, i.e., until the arrival of Alexander.

 

The town is surrounded by a long wall that runs further south to the shore of the lake to ensure that the caravans would pass through the city. Until the 7th century AD, Taposiris Magna played a significant role in the trading route for the goods arriving over Lake Mareotis and overland from Cyrenaica (see: Cyrene, founded by the Greeks). This forced the merchants to pay taxes before traveling onward to Alexandria.

[Picture from Heritage Daily. Pharos of Abusir – 

Image Credit : Einsamer Schütze – CC BY-SA 3.0]

The lighthouse, or the Pharos of Abusir, is a 1:4 or 1:5 replica of the famous Pharos of Alexandria. More recent and in-depth studies have concluded that this tower was never a lighthouse but a funerary monument from Ptolemaic times inspired by the Pharos - meaning it was built after the famous lighthouse of Alexandria.

 

Pending more excavations and perhaps luck, we might find where this remarkable Queen Cleopatra is buried.

Writing a letter home and the logistics implied

It sounds like the most obvious thing to do for a soldier, writing a letter home. But I find it quite remarkable that the Macedonian troops travelling with Alexander wrote letters to their family in their homeland because it implies that the average soldier could actually read and write! Maybe they didn’t all carry pen and ink in their backpack but papyrus or some kind of parchment – even though that seems to have been implemented only in the days of Cleopatra – was easy to take along.

The letters home are rarely mentioned in our literature but they become subject to close scrutiny when the Macedonians are divided after the plot and the execution of Philotas in 330 BC. Many were distressed by the murder of Parmenion, Philotas’ father. The army no longer stood unanimously behind the king’s decisions and policies. Alexander, however, could not let this group of discontent troops sow havoc in his ranks. He had to make sure to find the traitors and those who dared to criticize him. This was a serious matter and he decided to open and censor the army’s letters home. This was the only way for Alexander to locate the unruly elements. He removed the culprits from their own units and transferred them to a separate body, the ataktoi, a disciplinary unit that was specially created for the occasion. These men were sent on particularly dangerous or suicidal missions where they could and would redeem themselves – if they were not killed that is.

The courier service between the troops on the march and their homeland must have involved an incessant flow of riders and seafarers – not only for the common soldiers but also for official business that must have followed another channel.

The most frequent mail exchanges were undoubtedly Alexander’s official correspondences with his Regent, Antipater, and with foreign ambassadors and representatives. It was the task of his secretaries Eumenes of Cardia, who occupied that position previously under his father, and of Callisthenes of Olynthus, the nephew of Aristotle. There must have been an entire “office” of scribes of all kinds, including people who were familiar with the does of don’ts at foreign courts and a number of qualified translators and copyists to keep track of the documents.

Alexander certainly wrote his private letters to his mother Olympias personally for I doubt he would have entrusted these to anyone else. He may have employed a number of private and trustworthy couriers because the content of those documents was highly sensitive.

We are also aware of Hephaistion’s correspondence with Aristotle but it seems evident that he maintained a vivid correspondence with many scholars and high ranking officials spread all over the conquered territories and even beyond.

Also, the incoming mail had to be checked, sorted and distributed. The royal mail had priority and was opened, checked and sorted by the scribes in Alexander’s tent supervised, I assume by Eumenes who had to decide what had to be prioritized and what not.

The matter of correspondence, on whatever level, implies a huge logistic machinery of its own. It has been suggested that initially Parmenion was responsible for the army’s logistics, which may have included the mail services. However, once he was assigned as keeper of the immense Persian treasury in Ecbatana, we don’t know who replaced him to become the trusted brain behind those operations.

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