The post on Alexander the Great made me want to post on something I have often thought about. How much of history in antiquity is true. Alexander was a great writer and very egotistical. Those two hand in hand would make me think that there might have been some embellishment (although I think most if not all of his writings were destroyed in the fire in Alexandria – conjecture). The people that wrote on Alexander’s behalf would have certainly been influenced by what Alexander though history should be. Much of what was written about him was written decades and sometimes generations later. There are writings on how Alexander wore the King’s Headress (depicted as red in the movie) so that the enemy could distinguish him as the king. I highly doubt this is true. I think he would have met his demise much sooner. There are writings of how Alexander was the first of his army to scale an enemy’s wall where there were thousands of enemy soldiers waiting for him on the other side. That is where he received the arrow wound but I would think he would have been cut to pieces. It just makes me think how much of the “greats” that we admire so much is actually true. Now we do know that Alexander was a great strategist because there are detailed accounts of many of his wars (One would believe that these are not all made up.). He also conquered a great part of the world. This is true. But, I would think that some of the legend behind all these greats is hypocryphal.
How about Caesar? Here was another great writer and as far as I know most of what we know about his conquests in battle were written by him. He kept a very detailed account of his own history. Being as egotistical as he was why wouldn’t he embellish his own conquests?
Just something to think about…
|