Comparing Two Biographies of Alexander the Great

Introduction: The Controversy Surrounding Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great lived before the Common Era, yet he remains one of the most important historical figures ever studied. He appears in the school textbooks of virtually every country in the world. Many regard him as a hero, a military genius, and an almost superhuman figure, whereas others see him as a brutal tyrant who conquered vast territories for his own pleasure. He is, in short, one of the greatest and most controversial figures in history.

There are many reasons for the controversy. People hold different perspectives, but part of the difficulty also stems from the fact that sources about Alexander's life are fragmentary. It is genuinely hard to reconstruct the true character of a person based on second-hand accounts that often contradict one another, supplemented by scattered archaeological remains. Being a historian of the ancient world is a daunting task.

Nevertheless, historians remain fascinated by the Macedonian student of Aristotle who rose to such immense power that he conquered the Balkans, the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia Minor, pressing eastward into the territory of modern-day India. Some historians write about Alexander out of pure curiosity. This is the case, as he acknowledges in his preface, with Philip Freeman. "I grew up fascinated by this man," Freeman admits, "so I could not resist the opportunity to immerse myself in the ancient and modern sources on his life, to visit sites along his journey, and to imagine him racing his horse Bucephalas across the plains of Macedonia or crossing the deserts and mountains of Iran and Afghanistan." That curiosity continues to drive some historians to write about Alexander's life.

Philip Freeman's Narrative Approach

This may sound surprising, but Freeman's personal curiosity as a motivation to write about Alexander may be the strongest element of his book. He does not set out a thesis to prove throughout the rest of the work. There is no formal introduction — only a short preface. Historians who write to prove a point often end up biased, leaning toward sources and arguments that support their thesis. Freeman's purpose, by contrast, is to tell a story about Alexander that is readable by both scholars and casual readers alike.

He acknowledges the difficulty of sifting through competing sources and presents Alexander's life from his birth in Macedonia, through his education in Greece, and across his military conquests. Freeman concludes by briefly discussing Alexander's legacy, arguing that spreading Greek culture was never one of Alexander's goals but rather a pragmatic "means of military control over a diverse population."

Freeman on Alexander's Legacy and Character

Freeman nonetheless maintains that Alexander was one of the primary reasons Greek culture spread to Asia and other parts of the world — partly because his successors pursued aggressive Hellenization campaigns, and partly because the Romans were so fascinated by Alexander that they transmitted Greek culture to later generations. Freeman also notes that for practical reasons, Alexander cultivated local rulers in Persia who were required to learn Greek and adopt aspects of Greek culture. At the same time, Alexander intermingled with the cultures of the peoples he conquered, employing, as Freeman argues, the diplomacy he had inherited from his father Philip.

Freeman acknowledges that Alexander at times committed terrible acts against rivals, enemies, and conquered peoples. He was capable, for example, of ordering "the most horrific tortures imaginable" to extract information from prisoners. Yet Freeman places that conduct within the context of an era in which such practices were considered the norm. Ultimately, Alexander emerges in Freeman's account as a great figure in history whose legacy made a major contribution to the formation of Western civilization. "We can condemn the death and destruction he left in his wake as he strode across the world like a colossus," Freeman writes, "but in the end we cannot help but admire a man who dares such great deeds."

Conclusion

Both Freeman and Hamilton present Alexander's conquests of Asia Minor and Central Asia from the perspective of the conquerors — which is the primary weakness of both books. But working within the constraints of Greek sources and recent scholarship, both are careful historians. The only fundamental difference is that Hamilton tries to prove a point whereas Freeman wants to tell an accessible story. Hamilton writes with an obvious partial and argumentative tone, while Freeman simply narrates and remains impartial whether discussing horrific atrocities or heroic deeds. The contributions of neither can be discounted, as both have important things to say about the life of Alexander the Great.