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?

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

The realm of King Sopeithes included modern Bhera?

After having stopped at the Hyphasis River (modern Beas) to build his Twelve Altars (see: Alexander erected twelve altars on the banks of the Hyphasis), Alexander returned to the Hydaspes River (modern Jhelum), where he founded Alexandria Nicaea and Alexandria Bucephala (see: Locating Alexandria Nicaea and Alexandria Bucephala).

At this point, Alexander split his army into three divisions: Craterus would lead his party down the right bank of the Hydaspes, Hephaistion the left bank, and Alexander would sail down the river to its confluence with the Indus River and the Ocean beyond.

Arrian (using Ptolemy’s account) states that both generals were instructed to march at all speeds to the palace of King Sopeithes. Why these orders were issued and what happened further, he does not tell. Diodorus and Curtius, who followed the writing of Cleitarchus, place the encounter with Sopeithes as early as the Hyphasis River, just after the siege of Sangala (see: The siege of Sangala, in modern Pakistan).

Whatever the case, the encounter of Alexander with Sopeithes is very well rendered in Andrew Chugg’s book “Alexander the Great in India. A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus,” which I used hereafter.

Sopeithes had the reputation of ruling with high moral principles. For him, moral eminence and physical beauty were rated above everything else. A young child was judged by its physical condition and, as a result, was allowed to live on if it was handsome, healthy, and vigorous. Otherwise, the youngster was killed. At the time of their marriage, the young people were matched with the sole objective of producing beautiful and athletic offspring, as opposed to the usual values of dowries or wealth. It is unsurprising to learn that the citizens considered themselves superior to others.

When Alexander arrived at the town occupied by Sopeithes, he found the city gates closed and its walls and towers unmanned. He assumed that either the city was abandoned or this was a trap. Imagine his amazement when the massive doors were flung wide open, and the Indian king stepped forward to meet him, flanked by his two eldest sons. Three handsome men and a very tall king wrapped in long garments embellished with gold and purple welcomed Alexander, who must have been impressed, if not by the wealth, then certainly by the attractive and imposing personages. The king wore gilded sandals set with jewels; strings of pearls hung down from his shoulders to his wrist, and huge dazzling gemstones adorned his ears. He held a golden scepter set with beryl that he yielded to Alexander in a gesture of goodwill. Sopeithes surrendered himself and his kingdom to Alexander.

He certainly knew how to win Alexander’s heart, and the young conqueror generously reinstated Sopeithes in his kingship. With so much generosity to go around, Sopeithes organized entertainment for the entire Macedonian force that lasted several days. Alexander was showered with splendid gifts, including a party of 150 large hunting dogs of unique valiant breed.

Now the location of this unnamed city held by Sopeithes is subject to discussion. Still, based on Arrian and the analysis made by Alexander Cunningham in 1871, it is thought to be Bhera on the right bank of the Hydaspes River (today, the new city of Bhera stands on the left bank). Recent excavations have exposed several mounds (Barrian mounds) yielding artifacts from Achaemenid, Greek, and Mauryan times.

[Picture from PAK]

The modern village of Mong, built on top of Alexandria Nicea, lies only 10 kilometers away, making it plausible that Alexander crossed the Hydaspes near Bhera.

It is noteworthy that another King Sophytes in the eastern territories, minted his own coins in Greek style between 315 and 305 BC. He may have been a satrap under Seleucos I.

Alexander the Great in India. A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus by A. Chugg

In the tradition of his previous book in the series of Cleitarchus’ Reconstruction (see: The Death of Alexander the Great: a Reconstruction of Cleitarchus), Andrew Chugg wrote Alexander the Great in India. A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus (ISBN 978-0-9556790-1-8).

Once again, the author has been comparing the surviving texts from Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch and Justin to filter out the original work these authors have used themselves based on Cleitarchus of Alexandria. To a lesser extent Chugg also includes the Metz Epitome, many of Jacoby’s precious observations, as well as comments formulated by modern writers.

In spite of all this, the book makes an exceptional pleasant reading. Since Chugg is combining the texts from ancient authors there is no need to go through each of them individually to get the whole picture. Centrally in Alexander’s conquest of India is the Battle of the Hydaspes against Porus and this part of his conscientious gathering of information is by itself worth the reading! He ends his book with a concise description of Alexander’s Route Through India – very handy if you want the history in a nutshell but with yet enough pertaining details.

Cleitarchus, son of Deinon wrote his account in the decades following Alexander's death and most of the surviving ancient texts were more or less based upon his work, although not a single copy has come to us since they all were destroyed or discarded at some time or another.

Chugg has reconstructed Cleitarchus’ Book 10 (June 327 BC – June 326 BC that includes the Battle at the Hydaspes), Book 11 (July 326 BC – May 325 BC where we find the mutiny on the Hyphasis), and Book 12 (June 325 BC – June 324 BC including Alexander’s march through the Gedrosian Desert).

The author includes a Table listing all the Books and Fragments of Cleitarchus, from Book 1 to Book13, followed by a Table listing the Sources of Cleitarchus in chronological order. Next is a short Table giving the matches between Curtius and Diodorus. He also adds a very handy sketch showing the links used by each and every author in antiquity around the central figure of Cleitarchus.

The book ends with a Table giving for each episode in Cleitarchus' terms the corresponding sources and references with additional comments in the last column.

For those who want to read more of such reconstructions covering other periods of Alexander’s eventful life, there is good news since Andrew Chugg has recently published such a book: Concerning Alexander the Great: A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus (ISBN 978-0955679087).

If after all that you still have questions, please do get in touch with Andrew Chugg in person.

Fire over Persepolis

Contrary to what we like to believe, Persepolis was not THE capital of Persia but just one of the capitals. Because of the size of the Persian Empire and the different climates proper to each region, the King of Kings moved between several cities that became the capital for as long as he resided there. There is, of course, the city of Babylon (now in Iraq), a rather unhealthy place amidst the marshes of the Tigris floodplain where the summers were too hot but the winters rather pleasant. Susa, which was conquered by Cyrus the Great around 540 BC was a better place to reside and Darius the Great built his palace on its high plateau about the same time as he worked on the construction of Persepolis. Ecbatana, today’s Hamadan, was friendlier and cooler in summer because it was located much further to the north. Persepolis as well as Pasargadae were in turn built on a high plateau, which made both cities rather pleasant to stay. Pasargadae is the oldest city ever founded by a Persian ruler, in this case, Cyrus the Great, whose tomb still lights up the landscape. When Darius I, the later Darius the Great, came to power he wanted to build a palace of his own and that was nearby Persepolis.

As Alexander moved further east, he inevitably occupied each of these capitals in turn. First came Babylon, which he entered shortly after his victory at Gaugamela in October 331 BC. From there he marched to Susa in late November of the same year and reached it after twenty days of a leisurely march (see: Susa with its unique glazed brick walls). After a short winter, he headed for Persepolis where he arrived during the first week of February 330 BC (see: Alexander’s arrival at Persepolis and Alexander amidst the pomp and circumstance of Persepolis).

Alexander spent four months at Persepolis, yet it is difficult to track down what he did during that time. After the battle of Gaugamela, there had been no strain on his army as Babylon and then Susa surrendered without problems. The same reception was given at Persepolis and Pasargadae where the intact treasuries were handed over to Alexander. Of course, King Darius III was still on the run, sheltering at Ecbatana for the time being, meaning that Alexander must have kept one eye on the evasive king and one on his business here at Persepolis.

He had restrained his army from looting when entering Babylon and Susa, but once they arrived in Persepolis he let them loose to rampage the city, all but the palace. Arrian as usual is very sober about this but Diodorus and Curtius tell the story in every tiny detail – an awful business. According to them, Alexander would have described Persepolis to his troops as the most hateful city in Asia, the richest under the sun where even the private houses were furnished with great wealth. It is not surprising that the Macedonians were unstoppable in their insatiable greed, storming through the houses, plundering the premises, and slaughtering the men. The Persian wealth had rubbed off onto the common people and it is said they possessed much silver and gold, rich furniture and garments tainted with sea purple and embroidered with gold.  Diodorus speaks of an “orgy of plunder”. After rampaging the city for a whole day, the Macedonians still wanted more and fought each other over the looted trophies, even killing their fellow soldiers who carried away bigger prizes. He reports that some went as far as splitting the finds in two so each would get his share, or cutting off hands of those who were grasping the same treasure piece they were coveting. They dragged off the women simply for their luxury dresses. Alexander’s proud army definitely was drunk with craving. Many Persians, rather than falling into Macedonian hands, threw themselves from the walls together with their wives and children. Others set their houses afire, preferring to be burnt alive with their families. The rampage became so outrageous that Alexander had to intervene in person ordering his men to spare the people and the ornaments of the women. No wonder that the Iranians today look at Alexander as a barbarian beast.

To distract his men or to keep them occupied in a more “civilized” way, Alexander set out for the interior of Persia proper with a light-armed force in order to reduce all the villagers to his power, devastating their fields. About 30 days later he returned to Persepolis where he performed costly sacrifices to the gods and held games in honor of his victories. He entertained his friends lavishly, feasting and drinking.  

And then, there is the fire that destroyed the rich palace of Persepolis. What happened? Was the fire an accident or was it ignited on purpose? If so, why was Persepolis burnt or set afire? Many theories have been developed over the centuries but until now none of them has been conclusive.

Ancient sources are not too clear either. Arrian (who uses Ptolemy as his main source) mentions the fire as a matter of course, a mere statement of the fact, while Plutarch, Curtius and Diodorus (who used Cleitarchus as their source) tell the story of a drinking bout or a binge led by Thais that ran out of control – or didn’t it? Thais was an Athenian courtesan, and mistress of Ptolemy, the later Pharaoh of Egypt. As such, any involvement by Thais might have repercussions on Ptolemy’s rule and integrity when he wrote Alexander’s biography. This could explain why she was left out of Ptolemy’s account used by Arrian. The three other ancient writers sound, however, unanimous about Thais’ role in this devastating fire.

The story goes that there were prolonged banquets attended by the king and his companions, but also by some women. The wine flowed freely with lady pipers and flutists encouraging the singing. At a certain moment, the said Thais, probably as drunken as the rest of the company, declared that Alexander would win prestige among all the Greeks by setting the palace of Persepolis on fire; it would only be a fair reprisal for Xerxes’ sacrilege at Athens some 150 years ago. The idea kindled the fiery brains of the banqueters and all jumped to their feet, seizing torches – some say Alexander was the first to spring into action. Well, it doesn’t really matter who threw the first torch that ignited the bone-dry adobe walls, the draperies, and carpets, the plastered columns catching the cedar ceiling and setting the palace ablaze in no time at all. It is believed that the fire started at the Palace of Xerxes and quickly spread to the Hall of the One Hundred Columns, the adjacent Apadana, and the Treasury. The Macedonian army that was encamped nearby rushed to the Palace to help to extinguish what they thought was an accidental fire, but upon arrival, it was clear the fire was lit on purpose and they joined the bonfire.

There is a theory that Alexander planned this fire ahead of time since all the jewelry and precious decorations had been removed from the walls and doorways throughout the palaces. On the other hand, it is evident that not only the Treasury was emptied to be transferred to Ecbatana but also that all the gold, silver, and precious stones that were found throughout the palace had been removed. Moreover, the king had previously appointed a new satrap for Persepolis and arranged to garrison the city as he had done so many times before and would do so often afterward.

Surveying the plateau of Persepolis it is easy to see how fast a fire could jump from one building to the next. Alexander and his Companions must have run for their lives in order not to be caught in the fire themselves. It feels awkward to be standing at the entrance of Xerxes’ Palace, the doorway Alexander must have used repeatedly to get in and out of the building, covering the short distance to the adjacent palaces.

With the fire, Alexander destroyed the center of Persian power; his own new center was Babylon. The statement was made – or wasn’t it? All ancient writers agree that Alexander regretted his act as soon as he sobered up and his regrets are reiterated six years later when he returned to Persepolis from the East, but the damage to the Persians was done and he didn’t live long enough to mend it. The Greeks may never have forgotten Xerxes' burning of Athens, but the Persians certainly never forgot Alexander’s burning of Persepolis.

A wonderful analysis of Kasta Hill/Amphipolis by Andrew Chugg

Andrew Chugg is well known for his two books The Quest for the Tomb of Alexander the Great and The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great, besides several books in which he painstakingly tries to reconstruct the lost biography which Cleitarchus wrote about Alexander the Great, e.g. The Death of Alexander the Great. A Reconstruction of Cleitarchus.

It makes me happy to learn that he published his analysis about Amphipolis in yesterday’s Mediterraneo Antigua under the title: Is the mother of Alexander the Great in the Tomb of Amphipolis?

It is definitely worth reading the entire article through the above link. As always with Andrew Chugg, he takes a fresh look at the elements we have so far, consulting the antique writers, previously published articles and old photographs. He has a thorough knowledge of Alexander’s history and all what comes with it.

I would do him wrong by trying to summarize this article, it is too well written for that but I’ll give it a try anyway. He starts by analyzing what the sphinxes stand for and compares them to other examples  like those found in the tomb attributed to Euridice I, the mother of King Philip II, and in another royal tomb nearby that belongs to the royal cemetery of Vergina, known as the “Queen’s Cluster”. It therefore seems to indicate that sphinxes were used by Macedonian queens as a symbol in the late fourth century BC and consequently the sphinxes of Amphipolis may suggest that the occupant of the tomb was a prominent queen.

Because of the time-frame, i.e. the last quarter of the 4th century BC, two queens come to mind: Olympias, Alexander’s mother, and Roxane, Alexander’s wife. Roxane was killed in Amphipolis by Cassander in 310 BC (together with her 13-year old son Alexander IV who is buried in Aegae). Olympias surrendered to the same ambitious Cassander while in Pydna in 316 BC. Cassander needed her army and demanded the surrender of her faithful troops at Pella and at Amphipolis. Pella didn’t resist, it seems, but Amphipolis is a different story and Andrew Chugg thinks that it is not unreasonable to think that Cassander rode to Amphipolis and took Olympias with him rather than leaving her behind to be rescued by her supporters. If such were the case, Olympias died at Amphipolis as well.

This being said, Andrew Chugg makes comparisons and finds architectural parallels between the tombs of Amphipolis and Vergina, including pictures to support his theory. He even finds great similarities between the façade of Amphipolis as reconstructed in 1939 and that of the tomb of Philip and the tomb of Alexander IV in Aegae – with pictures. He has even scrutinized the marble floor that matches the threshold of the Palace at Aegae – see pictures too.

For Andrew Chugg, Olympias is the great favourite for this tomb at Amphipolis as her cause to defend and preserve the homeland of her son was generally seen as identical to that of Alexander himself, meaning that by giving Olympias such a spectacular tomb was equal to honouring Alexander. Cassander allowed the tomb for Alexander IV to be build at Aegae, so why would he have refused the burial of Olympias here at Amphipolis?

Last but not least, the author draws a line of similarity with another pair of monumental sphinxes from the same time-period which stood at the Serapeum in Memphis to guard the first tomb of Alexander the Great before he was transferred to Alexandria. The pictures say it all.

[Pictures from Mediterraneo Antigua]