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 missed voyage to conquer the West

Alexander always planned ahead, far ahead even. He was a true genius juggling many problems, projects, and strategies (see: Eyewitness accounts of Alexander's life). 

His most significant projects, or at least their outlines, were put on paper, as we may conclude from the to-do list the king left upon his death, as mentioned by Diodorus. We have no reason to believe Alexander’s ambition was a utopian dream. After all, conquering the then-known world in less than ten years is a superhuman achievement. Nobody before or after Alexander succeeded. Nothing could stop Alexander – except his own death. 

It has been generally accepted that Alexander aimed to conquer the western Mediterranean, and the idea is consistent with his character. However, Diodorus’ text may be a list of ideas rather than real plans, as we all would imagine. 

Besides his plan to build colossal temples and a mausoleum for his father, there was the project to build a thousand warships, larger than triremes, in Phoenicia, Syria, Cilicia, and Cyprus. This construction had already started while Alexander was in Babylon and alive. He planned to conquer Carthage. On the way, along the coast of Libya, he would create a string of safe havens and shipyards. Eventually, this strategy would lead him to Iberia and Magna Graecia, including Sicily, where many Greek colonists had established themselves centuries earlier. 

In the end, the Romans attacked the Carthaginians in Sicily in the First Punic War, 60 years after Alexander’s death. A second war shifted their terrain to Iberia, which was largely occupied by the Carthaginians (see: Carthage Antique, des origines jusqu’à l’invasion Vandale). We can only guess how Alexander would have handled the confrontation, especially since the power of Carthage was different in his days. 

On his way to Carthage, Alexander would need to secure the hinterland to protect his newly built harbors along the North African coast. To this effect, he conceived the construction of a road as far as the Pillars of Heracles (Gibraltar). The project materialized 2,500 years later when Mussolini built a 2,000 km-long highway, the Litoranea, running from Tunisia all the way to the Egyptian border (see: Cyrene, founded by the Greeks). We may wonder whether this was Alexander’s megalomania or far-sightedness. 

Greek immigrants searching for fertile lands and a better life had already colonized a significant part of the western Mediterranean. Around 600 BC, the Phocaeans (from modern Foça), who fled Asia Minor after a siege by the Persians, established themselves in southern France, where they founded the city of Massalia, modern Marseille. By 575 BC, these settlers founded regional colonies in Agde (Agathe Tyche), Antibes, Nice (Niké), and Monaco. 

With time, these colonists went further inland and spread all over Provence. The city of Arelate, modern Arles, occupied a strategic position where goods traveled up and down the River Rhone after they had been transhipped from Massalia. Most of those settlements are best known by their Roman names: Orange, Vaison-la-Romaine, and Glanum, although their origin was much older. 

A photographer friend of mine, Andrew Squires, explored Provence. His vision was to create images of the region, including Glanum, that translate the remains into what it once was. He published a splendid work of art as an iBook (with Apple) under the name Provence Mysterious. 

The Phoceans from Massalia, about the same time as they expanded in Provence, created circa 550 BC the trading post of Emporion, modern Ampurias, and Rhoda, modern Rossas in Spain. Both cities, connected by a long sandy beach, served as stopover ports in the Greek expansion in the western Mediterranean. Geographically speaking, Emporion occupies the southwestern end of the Gulf de Lion, opposite Massalia. 

The first colonization of Magna Graecia happened earlier than elsewhere in that part of the Mediterranean. It started in Cumae, founded around 740 BC by emigrants from Chalcis and Kyme. Spartans emigrated to Taras, later named Tarentum. It was soon followed by new colonies established by the Achaeans in Metapontum, Sybaris, and Croton. In 733 BC, Greek settlers from Corinth arrived on the small island Ortygia and founded Syracuse.

In the 6th century BC, Athenian settlers founded Thurii. Around 580 BC, colonists from Gela (Sicily), Crete, and Rhodes founded Akragas (Agrigento). 

Many of these initially Greek colonies became influential cities in their own right, creating their own towns. A good example is Sicily, where the new colonies fought the Carthaginians, the Romans, and each other seeking their own ideals (see: Syracuse rivaled Athens to be the most powerful city). 

In 535 BC, Phocaean refugees established the colony of Elea, home of the Eleatic School created by the philosopher Parmenides (see: Magna Graecia, the forgotten Greek legacy). In 433 BC, the colony of Tarentum founded Herakleia, and the Achaeans Poseidonia, Roman Paestum. 

These relentless fluxes of Greek emigrants were no secret to Alexander and his contemporaries, meaning he was well aware and informed about the western Mediterranean – something we tend to forget! 

An excellent example of the high skills and wealth in the western Mediterranean is the so-called Riace bronzes retrieved off the coast of Calabria ( see: More about Magna Graecia: a testimony from Calabria). Archaeologists disagree on whether they represent warriors, athletes, or gods. Consequently, they are called “Riace A,” created between 460 and 450 BC, and “Riace B,” between 430 and 420 BC. Let’s keep in mind that these statues are the kind of artwork that existed a century before Alexander. 

Although extensive, the above-mentioned list of Greek colonists in the western Mediterranean is far from complete but long enough to prove their impressive presence. They often were caught in the expansionist attacks of the Carthaginians and, alternatively, of the Romans. Alexander would have to face both sooner or later. With his seasoned Macedonians, he would have created a Greek/Hellenistic world instead of the Latin one Rome imposed on Western Europe. How different our world would have been!

Not all Seven Wonders of the World are the same

We like to believe that the list of the Seven Wonders of the World in antiquity was well-established, but that is not entirely correct. 

In the 1^st century BC, Diodorus mentions them by name: the Great Pyramid of Giza, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the statue of Zeus in Olympia, the Temple of Artemis in Ephesos, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Colossus of Rhodes, and the Lighthouse of Alexandria. This is the list we follow nowadays, but the importance of each monument has been subject to personal taste and appreciation of its time. 

Well before Diodorus, many writers had their opinions on the matter. The oldest known is, for instance, Herodotus who, in the 5^th century BC does not mention the Hanging Gardens of Babylon but provides a very detailed description of the Walls of Babylon built with baked bricks cemented together with bitumen. The ramparts were 72 kilometers long, 10 meters thick, and 22 meters high! A striking feature is that the top of the wall was wide enough for two four-horse chariots to pass each other. The intermittent towers were 27 meters high. 

Callimachus of Cyrene, who lived in the 3^rd century BC, chose to include the Ishtar Gate of Babylon – a marvel that has been reconstructed inside the Pergamon Museum in Berlin (see: A mental reconstruction of Alexander’s triumphal march into Babylon). 

Philo of Byzantium in 225 BC lists the Walls of Babylon, but not the Lighthouse of Alexandria, which had not been built yet. He said he had actually seen the Hanging Gardens but omitted to situate them in Babylon. Their existence remains questionable, and there still is an unconfirmed theory that these gardens were in Nineveh. They were described as vaulted terraces, raised one above another, and resting upon cube-shaped pillars. These were hollow and filled with earth to allow trees of the largest size to be planted. The pillars, the vaults, and the terraces were constructed of baked brick and bitumen. The Gardens were initiated by King Nebuchadnezzar II around 575 BC. Philo tells of the Statue of Zeus by Phidias in Olympia, the bronze Colossus of Rhodes featuring Helios (the Sun), and the Temple of Artemis in Ephesos. He further includes the Tomb of King Mausolos in Halicarnassus, and the Pyramids of the Giza plateau, not singling out the Great Pyramid. 

Antipater of Sidon, who lived in the 2^nd/1^st century BC writes that he laid eyes on the ‘walls of lofty Babylon on which is a road for chariots’, and the Hanging Gardens; the statue of Zeus in Olympia, the Colossus of the Sun in Rhodes, the huge achievement of the high pyramids in Giza, the vast tomb of Mausolos at Halicarnassus; and the Temple of Artemis in Ephesos saying ‘that [as] it mounted to the clouds those other marvels lost their brilliancy’. 

Strabo, in the 1st century BC, gives by far the most detailed description of the Seven Wonders. 

The Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, the oldest and only wonder that still exists, was erected around 2560 BC. It is the largest of the three Pyramids at Giza, which are all equally important, as stated by Philo of Byzantium. The proportions of the Great Pyramid are colossal. The original height from the base to the peak was about 147 meters. The length of each side at the base averaged around 230 meters. The theories about its construction and function are widespread and are by no means conclusive. 

The statue of Zeus in Olympia stood inside the Temple of Zeus. The large sitting Zeus was made of ivory and gold by Phidias in 436 BC. Although he was seated, Zeus stood 12.4 meters high, meaning that his head nearly touched the ceiling. Nothing much of the temple remains, but its impressive East and West pediments are exhibited in full glory at the local museum (see: Olympia, in the footsteps of Pausanias). 

The first Temple of Artemis in Ephesus goes back to the 7^th century BC. After its destruction, it was completely rebuilt to an unheard scale of 115 x 55 meters, i.e., larger than the Parthenon in Athens. The Artemis venerated in this temple is represented with many breasts, and is clearly not of Greek origin but imported from the East (see: Alexander’s presence in Ephesus). Nothing remains today to prove its grandeur and glory.

The Mausoleum of Halicarnassus (see: Halicarnassus, capital of Caria) from about 350 BC was a rectangular monument measuring 40 x 30 meters, and about 45 meters high. It was decorated with scenes from Greek mythology, such as the battle of the Centaurs with the Lapiths and fighting Amazons, although scholars disagree on their precise position. It is certain, however, that the statues of King Mausolos and his wife/sister Artemesia riding in a four-horse chariot, now at the British Museum, stood at the very top of the Mausoleum. The tomb survived in pretty good condition for many years despite recurrent earthquakes, but the final blow happened in 1494 when the Knights of St John of Rhodes invaded the area and reused the stones of the Mausoleum to build their castle. Remnants are still visible to modern visitors on the walls of Bodrum Castle. 

The Colossus of Helios in Rhodes, the work of Chares of Lindos, was completed in 282 BC. It stood near the entrance of the harbor, although the exact location is unknown. The Colossus wore a crown of sun rays – hence its name, Colossus of Helios - and held up a torch. It was made of bronze and rested on a marble pedestal. With a height of 33 meters, it is considered the tallest bronze from antiquity. It was the shortest-lived ancient wonder that disappeared 60 years after its construction due to a severe earthquake. Its legend lives on, though. 

The Lighthouse or Pharos of Alexandria was the last wonder added to the list of seven, replacing the Walls of Babylon. It was conceived in three stages: a square stone base, an octagonal middle section, and a cylindrical shape at the top. Inside, a fire would guide the seafarers into the harbor of Alexandria. By day, they were led by the smoke, and at night by its bright light (see: Alexandria’s past futures). The Lighthouse stood over 100 meters tall, and its light could be seen 50-60 kilometers out at sea. Its construction was completed between 300 and 280 BC during the reigns of Ptolemy I Soter and his son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus.  

The ancient historians of Alexander the Great have spent very little ink on these Seven Wonders – or the texts simply have not reached us. The Temple of Ephesos, which was burnt down the night Alexander was born, was still under construction at the time of his visit. But the king must have witnessed the grand Mausoleum of Halicarnassus and the main features of Babylon, such as its Walls, the Ishtar Gate (which he used to enter the city), and the Gardens if they were indeed part of the Royal Palace. Strangely enough, Giza and its Pyramids are absent from all documents, as if they never existed!

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

Persia's Historical Memory of Alexander

Robbert Bosschart has published an Updated Version 2025 to his book All Alexander’s Women, which deserves special attention.

Of particular interest is this newly reworked Chapter Persia's Historical Memory of Alexander, where the author focuses on the Persian side of history. The Achaemenids did not have a counterpart for the Greek writers and chroniclers and relied instead on the verbal transmission of Alexander’s life and deeds by way of mouth by their storytellers.

This new information is too good to be kept hidden in the dust of times, and I am very happy to share hereafter the most important information together with some of the magnificent illustrations. 

Persia's Historical Memory of Alexander

For Persia’s own first-hand memories of Alexander perforce we have to rely on oral history: all the published testimonies available today originated from texts of local storytellers, later written down and ‘enriched’ by scribes, poets or translators.

...

Early Persian/Arab authors who included history themes in their writings, based their texts both on oral history accounts and on written documents. From Umara in the 7th century AD up to Masudí in the 10th century they used all sorts of sources, including the first Arabic translations of the pseudo-Kallisthenes’ Alexander Romance.

As times went by, the most popular versions of Alexander’s exploits became more and more sensational and sexy, big adventure tales usually known as the Iskandar-Nama, the Book of Alexander. As a result, their reports about Alexander’s reign are quite entertaining literature, but in historical accuracy ‘few and far between’.

Therefore it is interesting to find that the only text with specifically Persian memories of Alexander’s life and deeds is, again, that of a simple storyteller. Or not exactly ‘simple’, for Abu Taher al-Tarsusí describes himself as «a compiler of histories and narrator of mysterious facts». The saga that Tartusi published under the title of Darab-Nama (‘Tale of Darius’) was a written version of an ancient folk story. From the 12th century AD on it became very popular.

The oldest manuscript we have is dated to 1580 AD, in an edition illuminated with precious miniatures made in India for the Mughal emperor Akbar. Painstaking research on this and other, later versions finally yielded in 1965 the definitive edition of the Darab-Nama. In his introduction, Professor Zabiholla Safa underlined that the text is based on oral source material that is much older than the Arabic translations of the Alexander Romance. In other words, the Darab-Nama reflects Persia’s own historical memory. 

Its title is rather misleading, because only 386 of the 1159 known pages concern Persia’s glory years under the revered figures of Darius the Elder and his successor. But the bulk of the text, 773 pages long, displays an elaborate tale of how his fictional granddaughter, princess ‘Buran-dokht’, first opposes, but finally permits Alexander’s conquest of Persia. 

A unique characteristic of the Darab-Nama is that here, Alexander does not get the brilliant leading role. That privilege is reserved solely for the purely Persian personage Buran-dokht. As long as the story takes place in Persia, Alexander is even portrayed as a hotheaded, at times stupid or cowardly, and always vulnerable young man, with no special military talents. More than once, Buran-dokht has to come and save him. Only after the story has moved to foreign lands, Alexander is allowed to become a brilliant warrior and wise statesman.

The Iskandar-Nama became a popular (and often hilarious) 

adventure tale with lots of action and sex

Of course, like many other works of oral literature, the Darab-Nama has been compiled over the centuries by successive storytellers. This makes it even more impressive that in Tarsusí’s final version, the text still manages to retain Persia’s popular memory of three historical facts concerning Alexander. 

The most extensive of the three is the (re)appearance of a goddess from a legendary past, Anahita. Time and again she intervenes to promote and protect Alexander’s kingship. To begin with, as Nahid, Alexander’s secret mother, who succeeds in placing him on the throne of the Western empire called “Rum“. Then she pops up briefly as queen Aban-dokht, who becomes his lover, and presents him with the capital of Persia, Estakhr. Finally she shines forth on hundreds of pages as the divine Buran-dokht, who ends up marrying him and setting him on the throne of the empire. Which means that even in islamic Iran, popular folklore still remembered –from 1500 years back!– the goddess Anahita, her role as Giver of Kingship, and her blessing for Alexander.

The second historical fact reported about Alexander in the Darab-Nama refers to his double Persian marriage «according to core royal usage»; that is, the multiple political marriages practised by Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great in the 6th century BC. This is told as follows:

«Buran-dokht took Alexander by the hand, made him sit on the throne and saluted him as King of Iran. Then they sent messengers and letters from Estakhr to all the provinces to announce that Buran-Dokht and Alexander had married. 

The gates of the treasuries were opened, gold was distributed profusely, and with both of them installed on their thrones on equal footing, they had seven months of celebrations. In accordance with the core royal usage, Alexander was also given in marriage the daughter of King Shahush».

So here Alexander marries a daughter of king Darab and a daughter of a king called Shahush. History tells us that in Susa, in 324 BC, Alexander married princess Barsine/Stateira, daughter of Darius III, and the princess Parysatis, last daughter of a king we know as Artaxerxes III Ochus, but who was called ‘Vahush’ in Old Persian. So the «daughter of King Shahush» in the Darab-Nama evidently is the daughter of Shah Vahush, as Artaxerxes III was known to his court.

The Persian warrior-queen Buran-dokht repeatedly 

saves Alexander from his enemies. 

Here she defeats the Indian king Poros, when she grabs 

his war elephant by the trunk and overturns him.

(Miniature illustrating a Darab Nama manuscript of 1720 AD, 

now in the Statsbibliothek of Berlin)

The third popular memory of a historical fact embedded in this saga recounts Alexander’s decision to promote mass-marriages for the better integration of conquerors and conquered into one realm; a theme that takes up some 20 pages in the Darab-Nama. This is how the story goes:

Alexander and his army happen upon an island of women, and thousands of these invade the camp «searching for men». Alexander suspects that in reality 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.

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 Makedonians”. 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”.

Alexander and his wise chancellor Plato receive Queen Sabaterah, 

who reigns over an island where only women live, 

and they all want sex with men. 

Plato will ensure that they become legal spouses.

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

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 of the storyteller in the Darab-Nama on the “miraculous solution” devised by Plato. In fact, all three of Tarsusí’s historical storylines, repeated again and again in the saga, must have met with notable approval of his Persian audience. After all, no storyteller makes a living by irritating his public.

Around the year 1000 AD, the prominent court poet Farrukhi Sistaní affirmed: “The story of Alexander’s exploits and his travels has found listeners everywhere, and everybody knows those tales by heart”. So Tarsusí and the storytellers before him had to take into account that among their public, there always would be people who remembered some previous version of the Alexander Romance.

As a case in point, their public in Ghazna could perfectly well remember an Eskandar-Nama compiled around 1015 AD out of stock tales of Persian storytellers that simply copied episodes from the pseudo-Kallisthenes Romance, with some fancy (and errors) added. In that text, Alexander is the undisputed hero of the saga. But to entertain the audience, this Eskandar-nama turns him into a comical figure who not only conquers kingdoms, but also women galore. He seduces princesses, amazons, warrior beauties, servant girls, widow queens, noble dames and even fairy queens (!) far and wide. With the result that this Alexander suffers all the problems of a bumbling man with too many wives and/or concubines.

When Alexander is listening to the deathbed pleas of king Darab, who begs him to treat his family well, Roxana makes her appearance in this Eskandar-Nama. “She is still young, you could marry her,” suggests Darab. (Here, Roxana is said to be not a daughter, but one of the wives of the Persian king.) Alexander answers hastily that this is a petition he will not agree to:

“God forbid that I should desire your wife, for I already have four wives, all free women, plus 40 concubines from here and from Greece.”

Roxana is an unavoidable heroine in all the Oriental translations of Romance episodes. So she also has to appear in the Darab-Nama. Well, more or less. When introducing his top star the princess Buran-dokht, Tarsusí takes the precaution of telling his public that «elsewhere she was also called Roshanak».

In other words, despite the fact that the following 773 pages prove without a shadow of doubt that his majestic Buran-dokht has nothing in common with the insignificant Roxana, Tarsusí still thought it wise to bow –if only once– to the Alexander Romance.

For my comments on Robbert Bosschart’s Third Edition, please refer to my earlier blogpost: All Alexander's Women.