Arrian Anabasis, Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 1 (Translated by Nick Thompson, student on the project)
Greek- Πτολεμαῖος ὁ
Λάγου καὶ Ἀριστόβουλος ὁ Ἀριστοβούλου ὅσα μὲν ταὐτὰ ἄμφω περὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ
Φιλίππου συνέγραψαν, ταῦτα ἐγὼ ὡς πάντῃ ἀληθῆ ἀναγράφω, ὅσα δὲ οὐ ταὐτά, τούτων
τὰ πιστότερα ἐμοὶ φαινόμενα καὶ ἅμα ἀξιαφηγητότερα ἐπιλεξάμενος.
Translation- Ptolemy
son of Lagus and Aristobolus son of Aristobolus as great as on the one hand
both accounts write in agreement of these things about Alexander son of Philip,
I write these things as the complete truth, on the other hand as great as these
things do not [write in agreement], the more trusted of these things seems for
me also at the same time that which has been attributed as being more worth
telling.
Commentary- Arrian
was not an eye-witness of Alexander’s deeds. He merely reports upon an
amalgated history made up of the accounts of Ptolemy (a bodyguard and general
of Alexander) and Aristobolus (a close friend, architect, engineer and
historian of Alexander). Therefore, we can presume that this is a reasonably
reliable account of Alexander’s exploits geographically but is likely to be
subjective to Alexander’s point of view whilst relaying events as it relies
solely upon the evidence of his trusted friends.
Sikandar
Nama, e bara (The Book of Alexander the Great) by Nizami is the only other
major text concerning Alexander and is written from the Persian perspective.
However, this relies upon aural traditions passed down generations of Persians
and so is also likely to be subjective in its approach. Another issue with
Nizami’s version of events is that they were written in around 1202AD and
therefore suffer from a lack of detailed, accurate knowledge of Alexander and
his exploits.
Our
maps are entirely based upon Arrian and so, as accurate as we may try to be, we
can only be faithful to Arrian to the exclusion of all other writers so as to
have as much of a likeness as possible to the shape of Alexander’s journey to
infinite power.
-Nick Thompson, Group 5
