Cleitarchus

The narrative of Alexander the Great has been recounted for centuries, yet few of his historians are as contentious and fascinating as Cleitarchus. Although his original writings have been lost to history, his impact endures through the works of later historians who drew upon his vivid, albeit occasionally embellished, accounts. Cleitarchus’ depiction of Alexander’s victories contributed to the legendary image of the Macedonian ruler, merging reality with dramatic expression. This essay examines Cleitarchus’ life, his role in shaping Alexander’s historiography, and the ongoing discussion regarding his credibility as a historical source.

In contrast to his contemporaries, Cleitarchus provided minimal personal information. It is believed that he lived during the 4th or early 3rd century BCE, likely in Alexandria, Egypt, which was a center of intellectual pursuit during the Ptolemaic era. His father, Dinon of Colophon, was also a historian, indicating that Cleitarchus was raised in a milieu that appreciated storytelling and the exploration of history. Although Cleitarchus is an important figure, he never encountered Alexander the Great nor took part in his military campaigns. Instead, he based his writings on secondhand information, interviews with veterans, and previous historical accounts. This separation from the actual events has prompted some historians to question the reliability of his work, while others contend that his outsider viewpoint enabled him to create a more compelling and vivid narrative.

Cleitarchus is best known for his work, The History of Alexander, which was likely a comprehensive multi-volume narrative detailing the life and achievements of the king. Although the original text has been lost to time, fragments have been preserved by later historians such as Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, and Justin, who extensively referenced his writings.

His narrative style was characterized by vivid and sensational storytelling, focusing on dramatic events—such as battles, personal conflicts, and the exotic landscapes encountered by Alexander during his conquests.

Among his most notable (and often debated) accounts are: The Burning of Persepolis, where Cleitarchus popularized the tale of Alexander setting fire to the Persian capital in a drunken fit, allegedly spurred on by the courtesan Thaïs, although later historians like Arrian proposed a more strategic political rationale; The Death of Callisthenes, in which Cleitarchus depicted the execution of Alexander’s historian Callisthenes as a harsh act of tyranny, highlighting Alexander’s growing paranoia; and The Gordian Knot, where his account of Alexander cutting the knot with his sword became the most recognized version, symbolizing decisive leadership. These narratives, whether entirely accurate or embellished, became integral to the legend of Alexander. Cleitarchus’ talent for storytelling ensured his work was widely read in antiquity, despite critical historians like Ptolemy I and Aristobulus labeling his accounts as unreliable.

Cleitarchus holds a controversial position in the realm of ancient history. His writings were both popular and impactful, yet subsequent historians have criticized him for favoring sensationalism over factual accuracy. Critiques of Cleitarchus include:

Exaggeration and Embellishment: Historians such as Arrian and Plutarch have pointed out that Cleitarchus included unlikely stories, like the existence of monstrous beings in India or miraculous signs.

Political Bias: Some researchers suggest that Cleitarchus tailored his narratives to captivate a Greek audience during the Ptolemaic era, potentially amplifying Alexander’s shortcomings to align with the prevailing sentiments. Lack of

Firsthand Knowledge: In contrast to Ptolemy or Nearchus, who were direct witnesses to Alexander's campaigns, Cleitarchus depended on hearsay and secondary accounts, which diminishes the reliability of his narratives.

Despite facing criticism, Cleitarchus' contributions were significant:

Cultural Influence: His engaging narrative style rendered Alexander's tale both captivating and memorable, aiding its endurance in collective memory.

Diverse Viewpoints: Unlike Ptolemy and Aristobulus, who offered a more polished portrayal of Alexander, Cleitarchus incorporated grittier, more relatable aspects of his character.

Preservation of History: Although certain stories may have been embellished, they captured the prevailing views of Alexander's rule.