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

Preparations to sail down the Indus

The history of Alexander’s conquests in India usually relates the facts in a succession of events without paying much attention to the king’s thorough planning and preparation ahead. To sail down the Indus was an expedition by itself, which is generally ignored.

Alexander withdrew in style from the Hyphasis. After building twelve altars to thank the gods for having led him so far as conqueror and leaving an impressive memorial to his own accomplishments, he turned around to cross the Hyphasis, Hydraotes, and Acesines once again (see: Alexander erected twelve altars on the banks of the Hyphasis). 

Hence, the army marched to the Hydaspes, where Alexander had founded the cities of Alexandria Nicaea and Alexandria Bucephala (see: The edge of the world was not reached). According to his instructions, many ships had already been assembled, but he needed to build many more before sailing south. Within two months, the entire fleet was ready. It consisted of eighty thirty-oared galleys, troop carriers, flat-bottomed boats for horse transport, circular tubs, local river boats, and enormous grain-lighters for supplies. The latter is a forerunner of the modern LASH ship or Lighter Aboard Ship that loads and unloads barges, as still used on the Indus.  Known locally as zobruks, they have a shallow draught and huge sail, perfectly suitable in strong currents. Each vessel could hold more than two hundred tons of grain to feed the army on their voyage to the Ocean.

This was a massive operation that Alexander had planned meticulously. He selected the Phoenicians, Carians, Cyprians, and Egyptians who served in his army. From them, he chose men with nautical skills for crews and rowers. Other experts were selected from among the islanders (from the Aegean), Ionians from Asia Minor, and people from the Hellespont.

Imagine this armada of up to 2,000 vessels (half the flotilla that crossed the Channel on D-Day!), moving at the shouts of the coxswain (steersman) as his rhythmic call was echoed by the high riverbanks mingled with the noise of splashing oars. 

Another factor worth considering is the number of troops needed to be moved. Back on the Hydaspes, 35,000 fresh soldiers had swollen Alexander’s total manpower to a massive 120,000! His cavalry, at this point, has been estimated to be some 15,000. However, not all the men and horses boarded the ships; neither did the impressive baggage train.

Alexander organized the army in three divisions as he would personally lead the fleet from his Royal galley with the support of his shield-bearers guards, all the archers, and the Companion cavalry – totaling 8,000 men. Hephaistion would march along the east bank of the Hydaspes while Craterus would lead the west bank with part of the infantry and the cavalry. Hephaistion took with him the bulk of the fighting troops and 200 elephants. Their instructions were to march together in advance and wait for the fleet.

The king took command after having performed extensive sacrifices to his ancestral gods and the deities of the river and Ocean. With a golden goblet, he poured a libation into the river from the prow of his ship – entirely in style with the solemn occasion. 

As soon as the trumpets signaled the departure, the voyage started in regular order. It was a hazardous enterprise, but the king had instructed how many baggage vessels were to sail abreast and the place for the boats carrying the horses and the ships of war. All vessels were to keep their distance and stay in formation, adapting their speed accordingly. Given the different sizes of boats ranging from warships and baggage vessels to horse transports, they individually required accurate steering and high alertness of their pilots. The purpose was that the ships would not fall out of each other or sail down randomly. Nearchus of Crete was appointed admiral of the fleet, with Onesicritus of Cos as his second and helmsman of the Royal flagship. 

Even after the monsoon rains had stopped, the annual flow of the Hydaspes was two times faster than that of the Nile or three times that of the Euphrates and the Tigris combined. The current would increase notably as the river narrows, particularly at the confluence with the Acesines. The roaring of the water could be heard miles ahead as the surface roughened.  

At last, the fleet made it across the narrows where the two rivers met, and the banks receded. The stream slackened, and Alexander found a protected spot on the right bank to moor his ships safely. Here, the men could take a break and make the necessary repairs before moving onward. 

Alexander was about to enter the land of the warlike Malians, who had been preparing for the confrontation.

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

High stakes at Corinth

When Philip was proclaimed leader of all the Greeks at Corinth, he was clever enough to insert a clause in the treaty-making his title hereditary. Each state had individually sworn not to harm any other member of the Common Peace and not to interfere in their internal affairs. They also had sworn not to become allies with any foreign power that could damage any member of the Treaty. No member could undertake any operation that might endanger the peace or overthrow its constitution. The then assembled council or synedrion at Corinth was the final authority to settle any dispute between individuals or between member states. They had to help each other if one of the members was attacked but were not allowed to accept support from foreign powers.

This means that after the assassination of Philip in 336 BC, it was one of Alexander’s priorities to be accepted and confirmed as Hegemon of this League of Corinth.

Walking around the impressive remains of Corinth, crowned by the Temple of Apollo, which Alexander saw in all its glory, makes you wonder where these meetings took place. The most obvious location would be the theatre rebuilt early 4^th century BC on the foundations of an older one from the 5^th century BC. This theater could seat around 15,000 spectators, but there is very little left of this building. There is also a Bouleuterion behind the Agora to consider, but this turns out to be a Roman construction that didn’t exist in Philip’s days.

The Lechaion Street, which connected the center of Corinth to the western harbor of the same name, is one of the highlights of the city. In recent years, expert divers have been exploring the very harbor of Lechaion to expose the infrastructure of this important port city, locating two monumental piers built of ashlar blocks next to a smaller dock. They also found a canal entrance leading into Lechaion’s three inner harbors, as well as a breakwater.

Lechaion was only one of Corinth’s harbors, as the city strategically straddles the isthmus between mainland Greece and the Peloponnesus (less than 6 kilometers wide), which means that it needed both an eastern and a western harbor. Lechaion, on the Gulf of Corinth, served the western sea routes to Italy, Sicily, and beyond to Spain. The harbor of Kenchreai gave access to the Saronic Gulf from where the ships sailed to and from the Aegean, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Syria, and Egypt. Goods could be transported overland from one port to the other as lightweight ships were hauled using a platform along the road connecting Lechaion to Kenchreai. This was before Nero planned to dig a canal meant to link both sides, a plan that eventually materialized two thousand years later. The remains of Kenchreai Street are not as impressive as Lechaion Street, which is tucked away behind the shops of the Agora, but both were familiar to Alexander.

The Temple of Apollo certainly is the main landmark. It is built in Doric order, counting 6x15 columns, seven of which are still standing and define the skyline of Corinth. Rather unique is the fact that the columns are monolithic and stand more than seven meters tall. It is here that the slight convex floor to support the temple’s columns has been implemented for the first time, antedating the much-praised concept for the Parthenon in Athens! There is no trace of the bronze statue of Apollo that once stood inside the temple, as mentioned by Pausanias.

Another unmistakable feature in Corinth is the Fountain of Peirene, built in the late 6^th century BC and enhanced many times, especially by the Romans in the 2^nd century AD. Much older, and probably built together with the Temple of Apollo, is the adjacent Fountain of Glauke, an inelegant cube of about 7.5 meters. Inside is a succession of reservoirs with a total capacity of approximately 527 m3. Water management in antiquity was far more sophisticated than generally admitted.

Since its early beginning, Corinth was a booming trading hub in the eastern Mediterranean and has a lot to tell. For more than one thousand years, roughly from the 6^th century BC till the 6^th century AD, the city was at the center of all trade carried out by its mixed population of Greeks, Romans, and Jews, and later by early Christians as well. The importance of this city cannot be stressed enough, and few people know about the many colonies Corinth founded all over the Mediterranean. As early as 733 BC, the first such colonies were established at Corcyra (Corfu) and Syracuse (Sicily). Less than a century later, many more settlements followed, like Epidamnus (Dϋrres) and Apollonia (Fier), both in Illyria, modern Albania, as well as Potidaea in Chalcidice, Greece. Corinth was also one of the co-founders of Naucratis in ancient Egypt. These facts alone prove the overall importance of the city, which rivaled Athens and Thebes.

It is not difficult to imagine the hustle and bustle of people in Alexander’s days, merchants talking feverishly with buyers and sellers, while seafarers were seeking the distractions common to every port - temples, taverns, and brothels are the same all over the world. Sacrifices to the local and foreign gods were being made to thank them for their safe arrival and to pray for a safe journey onward. Corinth certainly was no exception.

If the story is true, it was here that Alexander met Diogenes (see: Alexander meeting Diogenes in Corinth). This Cynic philosopher originated from the Black Sea and died in Corinth the same year as Alexander, in 323 BC. Diogenes’ own writings have not survived, but were known by his disciple Onesicritus, who accompanied Alexander on his Asian campaigns. It may be thanks to him and Ptolemy that his philosophy slipped into the later Alexander Romance.

Alexander’s eloquence

Eloquence is a fascinating aspect of Alexander's personality that only transpires on certain occasions and is hard to figure out as it automatically raises other questions. Was Alexander a born orator? He may well have been. Was Alexander inspired by his father's eloquence? Not unlikely since Philip was a shrewd manipulator in words and deeds, and this ability cannot have been lost on his son. Was Alexander a good pupil of Aristotle? No doubt, and certainly when it came to learning those skills which truly mattered to him.

The art of rhetoric is lost in our 21^st century of mass communication, where fast, phonetic language is the rule, but there were times when people would meet to talk for the sake of argumentation. Using our language effectively to convince and impress our interlocutor with the tiniest of nuances was an art. The fashion was popular with ancient Greeks, who liked to elaborate on their topics during their Symposia.

Historians like Arrian and Curtius often quote Alexander verbatim when he addresses his troops or responds to certain situations. Generally, these words are considered created by the authors rather than actually pronounced by the king. Maybe so, maybe not. Unfortunately, we have no original texts from Alexander's journals or memoirs written by his contemporaries like Onesicritus, Callisthenes, Ptolemy, or Aristobulus. Therefore, it seems too easy and even unfair to dismiss the idea that their accounts could have contained accurate original quotes and even speeches made by Alexander.

There are many examples of Alexander addressing his troops to motivate and encourage them at the onset of a battle. Still, he probably spoke to his audiences on many more occasions. It is said that he knew more than one thousand of his men by name, and I am confident that he used every opportunity to talk to them in person. In modern vocabulary, he is a good communicator.

We generally tend to accept the one-sentence quotes that are reported in history, like:

-    when young Alexander sees that Bucephalus is being led away because the horse is judged to be beyond training, and exclaims: "What an excellent horse do they lose, for want of address and boldness to manage him!"

-   when Alexander visits Diogenes in Corinth (that is, IF that meeting did indeed take place), he would have said, "If I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes."

-    when, after the Battle of Issus, Darius offers Alexander all of Asia to the Euphrates and the hand of his daughter in marriage, Parmenion encourages his king to accept this offer. Alexander drily responds, "So would I, if I were Parmenion."

-    or the plausible remark making Alexander say, "sex and sleep alone make me conscious that I am mortal," or the one showing his bleeding wounds stating that this is not "ichor" flowing through his veins (golden blood of the gods).

It is beyond doubt that Alexander addressed his troops just before the battle, for he had an excellent personal antenna to judge the morale of his men, and he knew exactly how to motivate them. Very modern is the openness with which Alexander tells his army what they are to expect, embellishing the truth in his favor whenever opportune. But we cannot blame him for that as, after all, the trick is used by every politician - then as now. The art consists in making the message clear and credible. "We are free men, and they are slaves" is one such quote.

The encouraging words he spoke just before crossing the Pillars of Jonah, over which Alexander would have to retrace his steps to the Pinarus River, where the Battle of Issus was to take place, are very telling. Both Arrian and Curtius spend many lines describing Alexander's speeches and personal addresses to his commanders and even to individuals of lower ranks, making sure to touch every man's pride and get their minds ready for the battle to come.

Like a fine psychologist, he plays the cord that touches the soul of every man. He reminds his Macedonians of their victories in Europe, including that at Chaeronea, rekindling their old-time valor; he reminds them of the Granicus and the many cities of Asia Minor they have already taken. When he faced the Greek allied forces, he brought up the brutal invasions of the Persians who burned their temples and homes, adding that now was the time for revenge. To the Thracians and Illyrians accustomed to a life of plunder, he tells them to focus on the gleaming gold and purple of the enemies and the booty they would yield. Of course, he needs all these soldiers since, according to the League of Corinth, they joined forces to fight against Persia; they need to be motivated as well. When he tackles the subject of the Greek mercenaries fighting in Persian service, he points out that they fight for pay. Alexander's foreign troops – Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes – were Europe's best and stoutest soldiers. Enough to kindle every man's pride!

Arrian concludes by putting these words in Alexander's mouth: "The enemy of Persians and Medes have lived soft and luxurious, while we Macedonians went to the hard school of danger and war. You have Alexander – they Darius!". We know the outcome of that battle!

At Gaugamela, Alexander addressed his soldiers in quite a different way since each and every one of them knew how important this victory over the King of Persia would be. Nevertheless, he stresses that every soldier should preserve his discipline in the hour of danger, that all orders must be obeyed promptly, and that all officers, regardless of their rank, must pass their commands to their subordinates without hesitation or delay. Most importantly, Alexander emphasizes that the conduct of each of his men is crucial to the fate of all. In other words, if everyone does their duty as expected, their success is assured, but if only one man neglects it, the entire army will be in peril. Strong talk.

Once his forces are arranged according to his plan, Alexander once again rides up and down the lines to lift the spirits of every man and every squadron with a last word of encouragement. Everything depended on the commitment of each and every one of Alexander's troops to maintain the frontline and avoid any gap in the formation that could be exploited by the Persians. Amazingly and against all odds, Alexander has indeed been able to maintain his line of defense. His men did not let him down!

Of an entirely different caliber is Alexander's earnest appeal to his Macedonians in the case of the Philotas Affair, in which his trusted general and boyhood friend is suspected of treason in an attempt to take the life of his king. This is a most threatening and highly alarming situation that can be compared to attacks on the lives of modern leaders like JF Kennedy or King Hassan II of Morocco. Thorough investigations followed these attacks with more or less success.

In Alexander's case, he had to lead the investigation himself and present it before his Macedonians under the prevailing laws. Alexander's exposé is worthy of the plea held by the most accomplished lawyer. He starts by telling his men how close he escaped death. He then shares his deep sorrow when learning that his longtime friends Philotas and Parmenion, his father's most trusted generals, had conceived a plot to take his life. The informants are then praised for their courage in bringing Alexander the bad news while bathing. Philotas, in his efforts to keep the matter quiet, must have had good reasons to do so, he says. He even reads aloud a letter Parmenion sent to his sons, Nicanor and Philotas, which he had intercepted, and in which Parmenion advised them to look out for themselves "for thus we shall accomplish what we have planned." A sentence that would have had no meaning had the conspiracy not been disclosed. Alexander takes his plea a step further by confiding his hitherto personal skepticism about Philotas, who had joined Amyntas (Alexander's uncle who was underage when his father was killed on the battlefield, upon which Philip was chosen as Macedonia's new king, with Philip's death he could claim the throne) to make an impious plot against his life. He tells his soldiers how these acts have torn him apart – working on their sentiments.

Alexander continues by reminding his soldiers that he had put Philotas in command of his elite cavalry, entrusting his life, hopes, and victories to him. He had elected his father, Parmenion, to rule over Media with all its richness, which required integrity and respect for his king. Now his trust has been broken, and he has fallen victim to such a shameful scheme! Alexander, in his speech, seeks refuge with his troops, going as far as to state that his own safety lies in their avenge.

Philotas' defense, which I will not detail here, is no less flamboyant and another example of good rhetoric that can only be traced back to Aristotle's teaching.

Alexander's plea in India was more significant and complicated when his Macedonians refused to march beyond the Hyphasis River. He called a meeting with his officers, hoping they would agree on going forward; however, without success. He then gathers his troops and reminds them of what they have accomplished so far. Working on their sentiments, he asks them if they are afraid (a sensitive note, no doubt) and then exposes the great prospects that lay ahead. Alexander has shared all his men's hardships and suffered the same wounds, the cold, heat, thirst, and famine. After these words, his men stood there in utter silence as nobody dared to respond or contradict any of the king's arguments till Coenus courageously stepped forward to verbalize the thoughts of the Macedonians present. They were determined not to go any further – they only wanted to go home after too many years away from their loved ones. We know that Alexander sulked in his tent for several days after that, but even he could not accomplish a miracle and had to give in and lead the army back west.

Alexander's discourse at Opis in 324 BC is the most famous and best documented. Here, Alexander called his Macedonians together and announced that he was discharging the veterans among them, the wounded, and those unfit for further service, so they could return to their homes. They would collect their pay, and their bonus would make them the envy of their family and friends at home. The king expected his decision would please his Macedonians (who wanted so badly to go home when they were in India!), but instead, they resented his words and told him so with loud shouting. They felt pushed aside in favor of the Persians and other foreign troops and cavalry. It hurt them deeply that the very people they conquered were to take their place.

Although Alexander was taken off guard, he immediately rushed into the rebellious mob to arrest the ringleaders of this mutiny. Then he made a fiery speech addressing his troops, who had contributed to his success over the years. He started by referring to his father, who brought the mountain people and goat herders to the rich plains of Macedonia and told them how to be victorious in battle. He, Alexander, had led them from victory to victory, adding all of Asia Minor to Macedonia, reaping the riches of Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia. They conquered the cities of Halicarnassus, Babylon, Persepolis, and Bactra. He took nothing for himself while they all lived in luxury. He shared his soldiers' toil and fatigue, hunger and thirst, freezing cold and scorching heat, and even their wounds. None of them was killed in flight, and those who fell in a glorious death were honored with a splendid burial, and their parents were released from taxation.

Finally, Alexander makes a defiant statement: "if you wish to depart, depart all of you!" He tells his Macedonians to go back home to report that when they returned to Susa after all those years of conquests – and he names the peoples, lands, rivers, and mountains they conquered – they deserted their king, leaving him under the protection of conquered foreigners. Do they expect their homecoming to be glorious in the eyes of their kin when they hear that they left their king behind? Powerful words which were much fiercer than those used in India.

Alexander retires to his quarters for three days. By the third day, he had drawn new plans appointing Persians to occupy the hitherto Macedonian commanding posts, which include his Companions and even his Silver Shields! That was just too much for the Macedonians to bear! The very thought of having those Persian Barbarians commanding them was inconceivable. They thronged around the entrance of Alexander's quarters, begging for admission and offering to give up the ringleaders of the mutiny. Once again, the army conquered their beloved king's heart, but Alexander's eloquence brought them back to reason.

"Every man of you, I regard as my kinsman, and from now on that is what I shall call you" are the words Alexander used to close the matter. I think this says a lot about the magnanimity of Alexander, but we should not forget that his eloquence widely contributed to his success.

[The picture of Alexander at Gaugamela is from Oliver Stone's movie Alexander]