pothos.org

Hello and thanks for having me on the forum. I am writing a research paper on what motivated Alexander the Great. This is a difficult question to answer as it seems ignorant to assume motivation came from only one place. It seems he was driven by his father but there's also evidence that he was looking to create a united world, he might have been motivated by power. I am looking for some decent sources I can site to build a structured argument. Thanks in advance for the help.

'The aims of Alexander' by P A Brunt is available on jstor.org which might help.

mkywel wrote:Hello and thanks for having me on the forum. I am writing a research paper on what motivated Alexander the Great. This is a difficult question to answer as it seems ignorant to assume motivation came from only one place. It seems he was driven by his father but there's also evidence that he was looking to create a united world, he might have been motivated by power. I am looking for some decent sources I can site to build a structured argument. Thanks in advance for the help.

Hi mkzwel, that is a tough question to be sure. Many experts on Alexander are skeptical of attempts to understand his psyche because they have read so many contradictory ones and because we have so few words by him or people who knew him.

I think that Appendix C of the Landmark Arrian does a pretty good job of laying out the kinds of factors which are often discussed and citing some important books and articles. I would also recommend making time to read at least some Xenophon and the Iliad, because Alexander was an Aegean aristocrat first and foremost, and that means that the things which were important to him were very different than the things which were important to scholars at universities in the last 50 years. He lived in a subculture where people cared about hunting and treasure and glory like middle-class Americans care about Game of Thrones and gender politics.

I want to echo the difficulty in nailing down what motivated Alexander. A number of articles have been published on this, with oftentimes divergent conclusions. Ada Cohen wrote about Alexander and Homeric views, Brunt's article was already named, Ernst Badian wrote on ATG and the Loneliness of Power, a psych article if ever there was one although he denied psychology in history vehemently. Ha. Fredricksmeyer (I think it's him) has an article on Alexander and Philip, Emulation and Resentment. And on it goes. Those are some of the classic ones. Carol Thomas has one What You Seek Is Here. Bodil Due did Alexander's Inspiration and Ideas, and then Ann Marie Niesen did a minimalist view called The Mirage of Alexander.

The problem is that Alexander is never conveyed to us BY Alexander, or even by someone who knew him in person. We're getting second- and third- and even fourth-hand views *in the primary sources*, never mind modern academics. Gene Borza once said (in his intro to Ulrich Wilcken's bio) "There are as many Alexanders as there are those who profess a serious interest in him." (I think that's pretty close to his exact words.) He's absolutely right.

Thank you Dr. Reames! I hope that some of those articles help mkywel get started.

Sometimes volumes with Companion or Handbook in the title will have a chapter on "personality" "goals" or things like that, and that should also give an idea of the main theories and list more specific studies.

Surely we can speculate a bit though and exercise the grey matter? We can't possibly know what was uppermost in Alexander's mind, but we can at least list the ingredients. Alexander's motives though will have changed over time: the motives of the young king crossing into Asia were definitely not the same as the motives of the king who crossed into India.

A few suggestions as to what motivated Alexander:

• 1. Revenge - the public motive
  - for past Persian invasions, depredations and destructions
  - for Persian interference in Macedonian history
  - for Persian involvement in Philip's death
  - for Persia depriving the Greek cities in Asia Minor of their freedom
  - for Persian atrocities on the base camp before Issus
  
  2. Testosterone = the soldier's motive
  - loot. Wealth = power, and the power to prevent further invasions
  - adrenaline rush. The addictive danger and excitement of combat
  - the comradeship of army life and sense of purpose
  - glory and fame
  - youthful energy
  
  3. Emulation - the PR motive
  - emulation of Philip's achievements
  - emulation of the gods, Heracles and Dionysus
  - emulation of boyhood heroes, Achilles
  - emulation of past kings, Cyrus
  
  4. Circumstances - the motives of destiny
  - right person, right place, right tools
  - the wheels were already in motion to invade Persia
  - Persia was ripe for the taking
  
  5. Psyche - the unquantifiable motives
  - the desire to be better than anyone else
  - the desire to outdo even himself
  - the inability to stop or give up
  - the sense of deflation and lack of purpose when not fighting
  - because he could
  
  Percentages? Who knows, but perhaps psyche 35%, emulation 25%, revenge 20%, testosterone 15%, circumstances 5%

Alexias wrote:Surely we can speculate a bit though and exercise the grey matter? We can't possibly know what was uppermost in Alexander's mind, but we can at least list the ingredients. Alexander's motives though will have changed over time: the motives of the young king crossing into Asia were definitely not the same as the motives of the king who crossed into India.

A few suggestions as to what motivated Alexander:

• 1. Revenge - the public motive
  - for past Persian invasions, depredations and destructions
  - for Persian interference in Macedonian history
  - for Persian involvement in Philip's death
  - for Persia depriving the Greek cities in Asia Minor of their freedom
  - for Persian atrocities on the base camp before Issus
  
  2. Testosterone = the soldier's motive
  - loot. Wealth = power, and the power to prevent further invasions
  - adrenaline rush. The addictive danger and excitement of combat
  - the comradeship of army life and sense of purpose
  - glory and fame
  - youthful energy
  
  3. Emulation - the PR motive
  - emulation of Philip's achievements
  - emulation of the gods, Heracles and Dionysus
  - emulation of boyhood heroes, Achilles
  - emulation of past kings, Cyrus
  
  4. Circumstances - the motives of destiny
  - right person, right place, right tools
  - the wheels were already in motion to invade Persia
  - Persia was ripe for the taking
  
  5. Psyche - the unquantifiable motives
  - the desire to be better than anyone else
  - the desire to outdo even himself
  - the inability to stop or give up
  - the sense of deflation and lack of purpose when not fighting
  - because he could
  
  Percentages? Who knows, but perhaps psyche 35%, emulation 25%, revenge 20%, testosterone 15%, circumstances 5%

That might be a fun topic for a discussion! But just to pick the first example, Maria Brosius ("Why Persia Became the Enemy of Macedon," Achaemenid History XIV) pointed out that Philip started to talk about the Persian threat at the time when it seemed like the Spartans and Athenians would call in the Persians to liberate them from slavery to Macedon, and when the King had given him a bloody nose at Byzantium. It was a beautiful piece of jiu-jitsu: now suddenly the people looking for freedom were traitors. She is not sure that Philip would have done as much to turn that rhetoric of revenge into action as Alexander did, because he was old and subtle and things moved so fast after the fall of Egypt and Philip's murder.

And making a case that Alexander thought that the Persians had been involved in Philip's death, and that he was angry about that death, would be a lot of work ...

But its hard to talk about Alexander without talking about what kind of a king he was, just keep in mind that smart people have some very contradictory theories, and that theories tend to change with the times.

Also, Alexias, I think that your third point gives mkywel some good topics. A question like "what role models guided Alexander?" or "how did Alexander imitate Hercules?" might be specific enough to focus a paper around and give some keywords to look for in the indices of books and databases of articles.

And making a case that Alexander thought that the Persians had been involved in Philip's death, and that he was angry about that death, would be a lot of work ...

I might be muddling up money paid to Demosthenes, but I thought somewhere there is mention of Pausanias allegedly having been paid some money by the Persians. Anyway, it would certainly have been a good story to put about, and the difference between what Alexander actually thought and what he said in public, make figuring out his motives difficult, as with any public figure.

There are other things that can be added to the list too. Alexander undoubtedly fed off the adulation of his army (a little like a modern sports' star), and their desire for even more spectacular success must have spurred him on to keep trying to achieve more and live up to his own myth.

Thank you all for the replies, I'm sure this will help. I am aware that primary sources are rare, but I think this information should certainly get me started. Once again I very much appreciate it!

Jeanne Reames wrote:I want to echo the difficulty in nailing down what motivated Alexander. A number of articles have been published on this, with oftentimes divergent conclusions. Ada Cohen wrote about Alexander and Homeric views, Brunt's article was already named, Ernst Badian wrote on ATG and the Loneliness of Power, a psych article if ever there was one although he denied psychology in history vehemently. Ha. Fredricksmeyer (I think it's him) has an article on Alexander and Philip, Emulation and Resentment. And on it goes. Those are some of the classic ones. Carol Thomas has one What You Seek Is Here. Bodil Due did Alexander's Inspiration and Ideas, and then Ann Marie Niesen did a minimalist view called The Mirage of Alexander.

The problem is that Alexander is never conveyed to us BY Alexander, or even by someone who knew him in person. We're getting second- and third- and even fourth-hand views *in the primary sources*, never mind modern academics. Gene Borza once said (in his intro to Ulrich Wilcken's bio) "There are as many Alexanders as there are those who profess a serious interest in him." (I think that's pretty close to his exact words.) He's absolutely right.

Thank you, Dr. Rames. I think this should help.

Alexias wrote:

And making a case that Alexander thought that the Persians had been involved in Philip's death, and that he was angry about that death, would be a lot of work ...

I might be muddling up money paid to Demosthenes, but I thought somewhere there is mention of Pausanias allegedly having been paid some money by the Persians. Anyway, it would certainly have been a good story to put about, and the difference between what Alexander actually thought and what he said in public, make figuring out his motives difficult, as with any public figure.

I think (and please don't rely on my memory!) that there is at least one ancient source for the idea, but that it comes up once in the context of abusing the Persians, not again and again or from someone like Aristotle who is just interested in saying what happened. But obviously there are all kind of theories about who put Pausanias up to it or conspired with him ... its just hard to convince everyone that your theory is best.