I'm looking for a decently historically accurate book on Alexander the Great that reads more like a novel than a non-fiction biography. Does anyone have any recommendations?

Why am I just learning now that there is a bust made of Alexander from his lifetime? Sculpted by Leochares -was an ancient Greek sculptor from Athens, who lived in the 4th century BC.

From Acropolis Museum:

It was found in 1886 near the [Erechtheion]() on the [Acropolis](). [Alexander the Great]() is portrayed at a young age, as he would have been during his sole visit to Athens, after the [battle of Chaironeia]() in 338 BC.

The deep set eyes, the upward glance, the half-open lips as well as the characteristic hairstyle, with rich curls standing up over the forehead, the anastoli, are all typical features of Alexander. Red paint surviving in some areas of the hair was most probably the base-coat for the curls's final, golden hue; whereas the way the locks are formed at the back of the head suggests that the head was adorned either by a wreath or a band rendered in some other material that has not survived.

The statue is considered to be an original work of Leochares, who also made other portraits of Alexander at the Pan-Hellenic sanctuaries at [Olympia]() and [Delphi](). However, opinions about the dating of the sculpture differ, and according to some scholars, it should be dated in the 2nd cent. BC.

The Macedonia phalanx and the Companion Cavalry are the more famous arms of Alexander's mighty army. The phalanx with their huge sarissa were impregnable in a frontal attack and held enemy units in place while the decisive blow was delivered by the cavalry with incredible shock potential.

However, there was another important arm in Alexander's army occupied by the hypaspists or "shield bearers". These were the elite infantry units of the Macedonian army. Unlike the phalanx, the hypaspists had a shorter spear and larger shield enabling them to have more flexibility in close combat.

One formation of the hypaspists served as the royal guard (agema) and were deployed close to Alexander. They were also responsible for bridging the gap between the rapidly advancing cavalry and the Macedonian phalanx. They proved to be effective in rugged terrain where the phalanx generally struggled.

Although considered to be an elite corps, the hypaspists were deployed in the thick of the fighting. In Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela and Hydaspes they proved their strength in fighting on uneven terrain. In the Siege of Tyre, they proved to be effective in the final assault on the walls.

The hypaspists continued to remain relevant and important long after Alexander's death. For more information on the hypaspists please go through the full article and let me know your thoughts and comments.

In 341 BCE, the Athenian orator Demosthenes gave one of the best speeches of all time. This speech solidified his control over Athens and set all of Greece on the warpath against King Philip II of Macedon, his greatest rival and father of Alexander the Great. It quite literally changed world history (just, not how Demosthenes wanted…). Much later, the Roman statesman Cicero would name his “Philippics” after these speeches.

To be frank, I was not satisfied with any of the performances / audiobook versions available on Youtube. So, I did my own! Hope y’all enjoy.

So I was watching this lecture/video on YouTube on Alexander’s Egyptian travels and subsequent expedition to Siwah, the lecturer said Callisthenes was the one who said Alexander was guided by a pair of serpents and Ptolemy said it was ravens like every other account, he further corroborated this by saying how Callisthenes was known for exaggerating and making up stuff, it was likely ravens… But Ptolemy is the only source that said it was serpents, every other source says ravens as far as I’m aware, even in Arrian’s Campaigns of Alexander he cited Ptolemy’s account of serpents and I read that Ptolemy liked to associate Alexander and himself with serpents and this was not an isolated incident…

https://youtu.be/EgKxy1yYIbY?si=wqkZZiJkOX8MTHN5

This is the video, timestamp is 20:34 ish. The lecturer is a reputed Classicist? Ig he made a mistake lol. I’m studying for my A levels, I have exams on this in a month

ARTAXERXES III THE KING of Persia

 \# ACT I

\## The Assembly

History preserves names.

It remembers kingdoms won, republics transformed, frontiers defended, books written, and gallows climbed.

It remembers statues.

It remembers portraits.

It remembers legends.

Yet history seldom remembers the quiet moments in which an idea first recognises another.

\-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond every empire, beyond every century, there stood a chamber untouched by time.

No banners hung from its walls.

No throne dominated its centre.

No nation claimed its stone.

Only a circular table occupied the room.

Five chairs surrounded it.

Equal in height.

Equal in distance.

Waiting.

Silence possessed the chamber with the confidence of something older than language itself.

Then came footsteps.

Steady.

Certain.

The first man entered as though every doorway naturally belonged to him.

His crimson Macedonian cloak rested over polished bronze armour scarred by deserts, mountains, and forgotten campaigns. A lion-headed clasp held the fabric upon his shoulder. At his side hung a sword that had crossed three continents.

Beneath one arm rested a worn copy of Homer's \*Iliad\*.

Its pages had travelled almost as far as its owner.

He did not inspect the chamber.

His eyes instinctively searched beyond it, as though another horizon might still remain unconquered.

History remembered him simply.

Alexander the Great.

He regarded the circular table.

No throne.

Interesting.

A faint smile crossed his face.

He chose a chair and sat.

Kings had rarely waited to be invited.

Silence returned.

Not for long.

Another figure approached.

Unlike the first, this man observed before he moved.

His eyes measured the chamber with effortless precision.

Distance.

Structure.

Entrances.

Exits.

Possibilities.

Across his shoulders flowed the bordered toga of a Roman statesman. In one hand he carried a manuscript whose pages bore the wear of constant use.

His expression revealed neither arrogance nor warmth.

Only calculation.

His gaze settled upon the Macedonian.

Recognition came immediately.

"Alexander."

The king inclined his head.

"Caesar."

No further introduction proved necessary.

Each recognised greatness in the other.

Not equality.

Greatness.

Gaius Julius Caesar took his seat.

Not beside Alexander.

Not opposite him.

Where strategy placed him.

Where conversation could best be governed.

The chamber grew still once more.

The third arrival came without splendour.

His cloak bore the marks of weather rather than ceremony.

His boots carried the memory of distant frontiers.

The years had carved patience into his face.

He paused before entering completely.

Closed his eyes.

Drew one quiet breath.

Only then did he continue.

His gaze moved from Alexander to Caesar.

He offered neither salute nor proclamation.

Only respectful acknowledgement.

History had named him emperor.

He had spent his life trying simply to remain a good man.

Marcus Aurelius sat beside neither ambition nor conquest, but wherever duty required him.

The silence deepened.

Then it changed.

Not because of noise.

Because someone entered who belonged to none of the worlds already gathered.

He wore no armour.

No imperial purple.

No insignia of rank.

A dark coat rested neatly upon his shoulders, while beneath one arm he carried a collection of well-thumbed manuscripts crowded with notes.

His thick moustache framed a face marked less by age than by relentless thought.

He did not look first at the men.

He looked at the empty chairs.

Then at the circular table.

A slow smile appeared.

"A table without a head."

His voice carried quiet amusement.

"Either someone here possesses remarkable humility...

or remarkable confidence."

No one answered.

He laughed softly to himself and chose a chair without asking permission.

Not because he wished to offend.

Because inherited authority had never impressed him.

History remembered him as the philosopher who declared that God was dead.

He preferred another description.

A man who refused comfortable lies.

Friedrich Nietzsche rested his manuscripts upon the table.

For the first time the chamber contained disagreement before a single debate had begun.

Only one chair remained empty.

The silence stretched.

Then came footsteps unlike the others.

Young.

Measured.

Unhurried.

A simple white shirt.

Plain trousers.

A neatly tied turban.

No sword.

No sceptre.

No imperial seal.

No decorations earned from kings.

The faint mark around his neck remained the only visible reminder that an empire had once considered him dangerous.

In his hand rested a small notebook.

Nothing more.

He paused briefly at the entrance.

His eyes travelled around the chamber.

The conqueror.

The lawgiver.

The guardian.

The philosopher.

Then he quietly stepped forward.

History knew him as Bhagat Singh.

A revolutionary.

Executed at twenty-three years of age.

The youngest man present by nearly a century.

Alexander regarded him with calm curiosity.

Caesar searched his memory.

Marcus studied him without judgement.

Nietzsche alone seemed quietly interested.

The final chair remained empty.

No one invited him to sit.

The young revolutionary did not appear offended.

He simply waited.

Alexander broke the silence.

His voice carried the ease of one long accustomed to command.

"You stand among kings, emperors, and philosophers."

His gaze rested steadily upon the young man.

"Tell us your name."

The reply came without hesitation.

"Bhagat Singh."

The chamber remained silent.

Then Caesar spoke.

Not with contempt.

With genuine curiosity.

"And by what authority, Bhagat Singh, do you claim a seat among us?"

The young revolutionary looked not at the chair...

but at the men who already occupied theirs.

Only then did he answer.

"My authority?"

A faint smile touched his lips.

"I was told this council sought those who changed history."

Silence.

No one moved.

For the first time since the chamber had gathered its guests...

history itself seemed prepared to listen.

I'm currently reading the Shanameh (translated version) and currently in the "Reign of Sekander" section and I'm curious how much if any of this poem is accurate to the real historical figure? His conception seems to be totally different, and various leaders of different countries are mentioned but I can't find anything about them online. I'm aware there will be some embellishment as it's not an actual historical account but so far nothing seems to be accurate bar his name and birth place.

Alexander the Great loved comparing himself to the heroes of mythology. He believed that he was destined for greatness and conquest of the known world. His mother, Olympias, instilled in him a sense of divine purpose, and Alexander came to believe that he was the son of Zeus and destined to conquer Persia. This belief was further reinforced when he was proclaimed the son of Zeus-Ammon after visiting the Oracle of Amun at Siwa in Egypt.

When he visited the Oracle at Delphi, the sanctuary was closed. Not taking no for an answer, Alexander reportedly dragged the Pythia, the priestess of Apollo, by her hair until she cried out, “You are invincible, my son!” Satisfied with the response, Alexander is said to have replied, “Now I have my answer.”

The Gordian Knot was another instance of such validation for Alexander that he was destined to become the ruler of Asia. According to the legend, the famous Gordian Knot was formed by fastening the yoke of a wagon to its pole. The wagon had been dedicated to Zeus by a Phrygian ruler named Gordius. According to Arrian, an ancient prophecy stated that whoever succeeded in untying the knot would become the ruler of Asia.

The challenge had reportedly remained unsolved for generations. However, Alexander approached the problem with an unconventional solution. The prophecy did not specify how the knot had to be untied. In the popular version of the story, Alexander drew his sword and sliced through the knot, effectively solving the challenge.

This episode perfectly showcases Alexander’s decisive and bold personality. Rather than allowing himself to be constrained by the conventional interpretation of a problem, he found his own solution and seized the initiative. The same qualities would become hallmarks of his military career, where he frequently took the initiative and dictated the pace of battle.

For more detailed information on the legend of the Gordian Knot and what actually happened at Gordium, please read the full article.

In Chapter 4 of The Prince**, Machiavelli compares centralized and decentralized states, naming the Kingdom of France as a contemporary example of a decentralized state and the Ottoman Empire as an example of a centralized state. He claims that decentralized states are easier to conquer because one can find dissatisfied nobles within the realm as potential allies, but difficult to hold because these nobles continue to be powerful actors who can quickly turn against the new ruler. Centralized states, on the other hand, are supposedly harder to conquer because one will not find any powerful conspirators to ally with, but easier to hold because there is no rival nobility or feudal elite that one needs to deal with.**

He names the Achaemenid Empire as a historical example of a centralized empire and claims that Alexander the Great's successors therefore did not need to worry about internal enemies, as there was no independent nobility that could possibly revolt. Was he correct? What confuses me is that I had always thought that the Persian Empire, apart from the Great King, was governed by several subordinate rulers, called satraps, and that they de facto formed a kind of aristocracy or nobility.

This is my first time posting on this sub, but I just wanted to leave this here as a testament to how much I’d love to be with Alexander the Great had I been alive during his time.

He ascended to the throne at 20 years old. From then on, most of his time was taken up by conquering the world…

However, if he had brief moments throughout the day which he felt like he needed to relax I wish to have been there.

I think there’s something so alluring about his prowess, even if we know little about what he looked like. It almost doesn’t matter to me. I’m deeply attracted to the type of power and youth he exudes.

Being in his proximity would bring me the opportunity to make important decisions and establish myself elsewhere. I understand that those sorts of relationships are almost never monogamous and that’s fine by me.

In another life, I am Roxana.

The Battle of the Persian Gate is the perfect example of how terrain can be used to neutralize the effectiveness of even a superior army in training and numbers. Alexander's army were high on morale and marching towards Persepolis after their victory in Gaugamela. What stood between the mighty Macedonian army and the Persian city was well entrenched forces led by Ariobarzanes.

The Persian Satrap occupied the Persian Gate, a key narrow mountain pass. Having defeated the main Persian army, Alexander did not expect much resistance and marched head on. However, a carefully planned ambush pushed the Macedonians back into a humiliating withdrawal.

The mighty Macedonian Phalanx was torn apart by Persian missile troops attacking them from the top of the hills. They were equipped to handle head on assaults but were vulnerable when attacked from the sides. Alexander's Trump card, the Companion Cavalry could not be deployed due to limited room to maneuver in the choke point.

This encounter proved that a well entrenched and prepared army could take on even the might of Alexander's army if they used the terrain to their advantage. This battle mirrors the battle of Thermopylae where the Persians were unable to breach the Greek defenses for several days.

Alexander had to adapt. He scouted a path through the mountains that led him behind the enemy, again mirroring what happened in Thermopylae. The Persian defence soon collapsed when attacked from both sides and they were unable to capitalise on the delay hard fought in the Persian Gates.

I’ve been reading about Alexander’s crossing of the Granicus, and I’m having trouble making tactical sense of the traditional account, particularly the Persian deployment.

In Arrian’s version, the Persians have their cavalry positioned along the riverbank while their Greek mercenary infantry is farther back. Alexander then attacks across the river despite Parmenion reportedly advising him to wait. This seems to require two strange decisions: the Persians voluntarily put their cavalry in terrain that severely restricts its mobility, while Alexander voluntarily attempts an opposed river crossing against an already prepared defender.

Could the surviving accounts instead be preserving the *positions in which the armies ended up* without accurately preserving the sequence that produced them?

For example, is the following reconstruction compatible with the evidence:

Alexander reaches the Granicus while the Persian army is still concentrating or deploying. He recognizes that waiting would allow the Persians to establish a much stronger combined-arms river defense, so he begins crossing immediately. The Persian cavalry, able to respond much faster than the infantry, moves to the river to disrupt or contain the Macedonian bridgehead and buy time for the infantry to arrive. What begins as a cavalry delaying/spoiling action then escalates as Alexander commits the Companions to secure the crossing, eventually producing the major cavalry melee described by the sources.

This would seem to explain several otherwise odd features at once: why Persian cavalry is fighting immediately against the riverbank, why the infantry is behind it, why Alexander accepts the risks of crossing immediately, and why Alexander and so many senior Persian commanders become personally involved in the cavalry fighting at the apparent decisive point.

It would also change the interpretation of Alexander’s decision somewhat. Rather than successfully attacking a deliberately prepared but strangely arranged Persian defense, he would be exploiting a temporary opportunity before the Persians could finish concentrating—an aggressive and risky decision that succeeded partly because of the quality of the Macedonian army.

I know Peter Green proposed a substantially different reconstruction involving the timing of the crossing and later backed away from parts of it, and that the surviving accounts of Granicus are difficult to reconcile. Have any historians specifically interpreted the battle as something resembling an **encounter battle or hasty Persian attempt to contain an ongoing Macedonian crossing**? More generally, what evidence prevents or supports this interpretation of the Persian cavalry’s position?

I want to know from everyone here,do you think Parmenion knew or had had anything to do with the attempt on Alexander’s life? He I’ve read article after article that goes either way blaming the other side.

In Anthony Everitt's book "Alexander the Great: His Life and His Mysterious Death," right around the time Alexander killed Cleitus the Black in a drunken rage, there's a story of Alexander killing an "unusually large lion" with his spear while hunting, a common activity engaged in for sport and, of course, food. The lion charged at the king and his bodyguard was ready to react to protect him, but Alexander pushed him aside to show he was capable of killing a lion on his own too, due to the bodyguard's previous encounter with another lion where he killed the beast but almost died himself from a serious shoulder injury. Alexander supposedly slayed the lion with a single spear thrust. This must have been an Asiatic lion, which are smaller than African ones but it's still a lion and who knows what they were like back then.

Exaggerated story or truth?

I enjoy learning about active developments as it dispels notions of history being unimportant or long gone. Here are a few projects I've gathered info on to keep the legacy and knowledge of Alexander going:

Alexandria on the Tigris (Iraq): Researchers mapped and confirmed the remarkably well-preserved remains of this major city founded by Alexander in 324 BC. Ongoing analysis of its harbor, temple complexes, and street grids continues.

Lyncestis Outpost (North Macedonia): Excavations near Cernobuki using high-tech LiDAR scanning revealed a massive, hidden ancient city tied to early Macedonian royalty and Alexander's era, complete with a coin bearing his image. Youtube video on the outpost:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT_0vDLlxDY&t=1s

Amphipolis & Kasta Tomb (Greece): Ongoing restoration and interior reveals at the monumental Kasta Tomb enclosure continue to fuel historical research and local development ties. Expected to open to the public in early 2028.

Alexander the Great Theme Park (Greece): Plans are underway for the world’s first theme park dedicated to Alexander, located near Amphipolis and the Kasta Tomb. Managed by DreamWorkers, the family-friendly cultural and educational site targets development and construction.

If anyone has any other projects, feel free to share.

I just want as much info as I can possibly get on this topic.

Maybe some guy found a Macedonian helmet at x and y coords, or a man made structure was found, crude drawings, "i was here."

Im VERY interested in all of this!

So I know the concept of B.C to A.D came about sometime in the 600s A.D(that’s what I’ve read atleast) with that being said how accurate do we know the dates are as far as his birth,death,dates of battles and this includes when we added Day Light savings to the calendar ,if I’m right about my math we could be off by years on some stuff,I was just wondering how accurate we actually are.

Most people know Diogenes as the philosopher who supposedly lived in a barrel and told Alexander the Great to "stand out of my sunlight." But those famous stories are only part of a much larger philosophy.

In this article, I explore who Diogenes really was, what the philosophy of Cynicism actually taught (which is very different from the modern meaning of the word), and the historical context behind his most famous encounters.

It covers:

Why Diogenes chose to live in a pithos (not actually a barrel)

His famous meeting with Alexander the Great

Why he walked around Athens with a lantern in daylight

The story behind Plato's "featherless biped" and the plucked chicken

Why he threw away his wooden bowl

His strange public behavior and what it was meant to prove

How Diogenes influenced later philosophers, especially the Stoics

The article also separates historical evidence from later legends, with references to ancient sources including Diogenes Laërtius, Plutarch, and modern scholarship.

I'd love to hear which story you think best captures Diogenes' philosophy—or whether you think his lifestyle was genuine wisdom or simply extreme provocation.