“the Greeks never saw Alejandro as a deliverer, but as a tyrant”

The figure of Alexander the great It marked a before and an after in ancient times. The Macedonian King changed the balance of power in the Mediterranean and opened the doors of the relations between East and West, giving rise to a cultural current of great vigor: the Hellenism. However, are relatively few historical sources about her figure, What has dyed his biography of a mythical aura amplified, above all, After the publication of the “Life and feats of Alejandro de Macedonia”, of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, of century III d.C. Ancient Mediterranean He wanted to delve into the personality of this character from the hand of Francisco Javier Gómez Espelosin, Professor of the Universidad de Alcalá de Henares and author of one of the best biographies on Alejandro that you have written in recent times.

Question -In his biography about Alejandro, edited by Alliance publishing, It makes a very good analysis of the sources for their knowledge and their echo in the literature is not a little discouraging that there are so few historical sources? For example, childhood and training of Alejandro We only have to Plutarch…

Response -The disappointment by sources is a disappointment which affects us all who are dedicated to the study of antiquity. Frustrating is that we have so few and so indirect. We don't have personal memories of any actor, which occur in other epochs of history. This Yes very much complicates things. In terms of his childhood and training, effectively, We only have Plutarch and we all know the limitations of his historical writings, as he himself says that they are not stories and biographies, but it is all we have. The others are stories written much later, with a few very specific interests of the era in which it is written, as the work of Arian, where are the interests of the Roman imperial era in the background. It is not a work of a historian, but a character involved inside of the Roman Empire, that also has an important position. None of the evidence we have about Alejandro is historians themselves.

Question – Flavio Arriano points to the start of his work the sources on which it is based and the reasons, but it doesn't seem to have much credibility...

Response – Is it possible that it if you believe and think honestly that Ptolemy He had written thinking like him in their monarch's reference, It was Alejandro, but for us they are that they lack validity and criteria that do not provide us with any clarity what could have been.

Question -It gives the feeling that, with a few Honorable exceptions such as Hammond, Briant or yourself, Each historian has designed its own Alejandro based on what has interested you take from these sources what you see?

Response -I think that goes for all, No resaltaría no exception, because Hammond He is a man who had participated in the World War II in the Balkans and it had exceptional military knowledge that does not have a normal historian, but he also had his particular vision of Alejandro. Remember that after publishing several works on Alejandro publishes his famous "The genius of Alexander", where it clearly opts for a positive choice. Bosworth, on the other hand, has opted for the negative view of Alejandro and it is probably the better known sources. Inevitably, as I said Badian, the situation is summed up in that all have concentrated our interest in a certain facets of a figure as versatile as it is Alejandro.

Question – Alejandro committed in Callisthenes of Olynthus the story of his feat and before the tomb of Achilles He complained that he didn't have a poet as Homer did not made a major mistake Alejandro When you run to Callisthenes, only official source thus far and on top of Greek origin?

Response – Alejandro takes to Callisthenes with the idea that someone, with some authority, not only because of his kinship with Aristotle but because had already written works such as “Hellenic“, told their story. Callisthenes It falls from grace for reasons that have nothing to do with the writing of his work, but for political reasons, for his opposition to Eastern practices of Alejandro and this, with this idea of cleaning that was gaining momentum during its life, just deleting it. You would have to wonder if Alejandro It still, at the time of the execution of Callisthenes, This concern that there will be his feat, It is an already very advanced stage of the conquest, with everything that has happened and lived, in which you see is owner of the Persian Empire and that probably goes to a background concern about who it contase history. And if this should be done by an individual who did not follow their guidelines, maybe worse still. Alejandro is a more pragmatic man, He is a man who is not the same than when out of Macedonia. We can not analyze the figure of Alejandro from statism. Events, as any person, they are changing and this is the reading that we had applied in this case. It's true that initially Alejandro He tried to steer the image that was projected of it hiring Callisthenes so share their adventures, to Lysippos so she sculpted her image, to Apelles so paint it and even elected a goldsmith, but as it is more pragmatic about it seems that this control of your image will be diluted.

Question -Even could say that, in this evolution, There comes a time in which Alejandro This witch hunt is overwhelmed and then after Gaugamela…

Response -Yes, We could say that Alexander, to accumulate territories and responsibilities, lose that security and that idealistic character with which began the campaign and becomes a more pragmatic man and, to a certain extent, overwhelmed by the circumstances of the conquest. It may be that at certain times, dissenting voices have caused him some uncertainty and decide the problem to the Macedonian style.

Question -The historical figure of Alejandro It has become generally confused with the myth, even during his own life do you think that Alejandro He wanted to be really mythified or we have a subsequent construction?

Response -I believe that he was trying to be mythified because he, since childhood, Despite the gaps that we have and that we've talked about, He had grown up in an atmosphere of emulation of a series of characters that they believed that they were historical characters. We establish a clear separation between Achilles, Ulysses, Heracles and other heroes and historical figures, but he had grown in the emulation of these characters. It is not unusual, Therefore, What Alejandro He hoped to be among these heroes that already in ancient times had achieved the same successes that he sought. Then it was also the attempt of the companions, Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Onesicritus, mitificar campaign, some on their own behalf. Must not forget that You Aeschines says that Alejandro is “in the confines of the ORB”, as meaning that it is already beyond human. It is a combination of the two aspects, the personal and the collective.

Question -Some historians consider to Alejandro a simple conqueror, but we are aware of the Foundation of cities and Government efforts would collapse of his ephemeral Empire was responsibility you or its successors?

Response - As we said, Alejandro was a pragmatic man, above all. Especially in the most advanced stage of the conquest. He founded the cities a purely military purposes, control of the territories. In fact not based on other places that are not directly related with zones of conquest. The only foundation that made out of that area is Alexandria. The current Kandahar, Herat, the famous Latest Alexandria... are cities that are concentrated in the area which has more difficulties of control. Far more than in the great battles against the Persians, where it becomes worse in Central Asia, in Bactria and in Sughd. The Foundation of these cities probably corresponds to a desire for military control. Now well, inevitably, as cities, the Greek way of life was: they had gyms, theatres... In this sense one could speak of that contributed to their hellenization, but clearly it was not his intention. With regard to the responsibility, It must be said that the Empire was an Empire with feet of clay, depended on his figure. Once gone it, everything falls apart. This is seen in the panic among the troops, that is expressed in some texts, to which Alejandro dies or falls seriously ill, as it did on occasion. If the own conquest depends on a person's, It seems that it exercised absolute control over the information, According to some source quotes us, It is reasonable that disappeared once this structure has no prospects for the future and all come down with the figure of his successors, because there is no person who can deal with the gap left by Alejandro.

Question -You think that the conquests of? Alejandro in Asia they are motivated by the chopping of the Persian Empire?

Response -It is likely that Alejandro at the beginning had just that goal, but taking into account that in the Greek imagination the Persian Empire is equated with Asia, is likely that Alejandro I would like to go further and control everything. When Alejandro He realizes that most of the Himalaya still having more territories, He decides to continue up to the Ganges. His troops mutiny and you have, but this shows that he wanted more. When there is a turning point is when Alejandro conquers Persian cities, leave the Greek troops, and begins a new stage, It's your own personal conquest. Alejandro It seems that you aspired to a universal domain, an ecumenical domain as, in those moments, amounted to Asia.

Question -To the extent that Persia did not intervene in the Affairs of Greece, the projected campaign by Philip and executed by Alejandro is it not a campaign of liberation rather than conquest?

Response -The campaign of liberation is pure propaganda. There is an excellent job of Chester G. Starr on the economic situation of Asia minor at the time of Alejandro showing that he lived a period of expansion. Alejandro instead of release, that seemed to do was sink that prosperity. It was not as well received, as seen by the events that occurred in Miletus and Halicarnassus. In HIOS and Priene We see that Alejandro ranks that the Persians have ceased, the tribute of the Persians going to Macedonian administrator and Alejandro absolutely protects the subject cities. The idea of liberation of these cities is really a fallacy. Persian interventionism that avalanches, It also occurred in the other direction, because the Greeks burnt the temples of Sardis in a campaign of support to Ciro against his brother. The best demonstration of the false idea of liberation is that the Greeks never looked to Alejandro as a deliverer, they looked to Alejandro as a tyrant.

Question -Explain briefly what is the project you are working on Alejandro and geography.

Response -Is a project that we asked the universities and that it finances the Ministry of economy and competitiveness. It focuses on the less studied aspect of Alejandro, Since it is difficult to find any dimension of your life that is not worked well. There is practically nothing to try on the campaigns of Alejandro from the geographical point of view, except for some early 20th century German works. Has not been studied how collided the expectations that they had with the reality that were discovered. The project has three-year, We practically started now in the 2013, We will be up to the 2015 and the goal would be to take a monograph at the end which were reflected the results of the investigation. Is a little apart from the interests of Alejandro, they are many: the military, the religious, the biographical... But the geographical aspect has been almost in the background. The sources we have are not clear and not detail anything in this field.

Author: Mario Agudo Villanueva