kathimerini.gr
Ancient Historians and the Multiple Portraits of Alexander the Great
The 2nd International Historiography Congress in Athens explored the diverse ancient accounts of Alexander the Great, focusing on the perspectives of contemporary historians like Cleitarchus and Nearchus and how their accounts shaped the Greco-Roman literary tradition.
- What were the key factors shaping the Greco-Roman literary tradition's portrayal of Alexander the Great?
- The 2nd International Historiography Congress, "Trends in Classics," at the Academy of Athens examined the Greco-Roman literary tradition surrounding Alexander the Great. Scholars discussed how ancient authors structured their narratives around fate, decisiveness, and Alexander's desires, using sources like Cleitarchus, whose extensive work influenced later historians.
- How did the perspectives of contemporary historians like Cleitarchus and Nearchus contribute to the diverse interpretations of Alexander's life and reign?
- The congress highlighted the diverse perspectives on Alexander, shaped by the authors' proximity to events and their own agendas. Cleitarchus, Ptolemy I's official historian, offered a complex portrayal influenced by Alexandria's cosmopolitanism, resulting in both positive and critical accounts of Alexander's reign. Nearchus, Alexander's admiral, attempted a balanced account while also promoting his own competence.
- What long-term impacts did the varied and sometimes contradictory accounts of Alexander's life and actions have on the historical record and its interpretation?
- The congress's focus on Cleitarchus's adaptable and nuanced portrayal of Alexander suggests a trend in ancient historiography: the adoption of a flexible approach to historical narrative, enabling the author to appeal to a broad audience. This adaptability, however, could leave the overall portrayal of the subject ambiguous, opening it up to diverse interpretations across time.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the diverse interpretations of Alexander's life and the conditions under which ancient historians wrote about him. The article highlights the complexities of constructing a historical narrative based on multiple, sometimes conflicting, sources, preventing a singular, biased framing.
Language Bias
The language is largely neutral and descriptive. Terms like "heroic" and "negative" are used to describe portrayals of Alexander, but these are presented within the context of scholarly analysis, not as judgments.
Bias by Omission
The provided text focuses on the historiography of Alexander the Great, mentioning several ancient historians and their works. It doesn't, however, delve into potential biases within those works themselves, limiting a full assessment of omitted perspectives or contexts. This omission is understandable given the article's focus on the broader historical context of writing about Alexander, but it prevents a complete analysis of bias in individual accounts.
Gender Bias
The text focuses on the works and perspectives of male historians. The absence of female voices is a significant omission that needs to be addressed for a more complete understanding of the subject. However, this limitation likely stems from the historical context and available sources rather than intentional bias within this specific article.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses a conference focusing on ancient historiography related to Alexander the Great. This highlights the ongoing scholarly study and interpretation of historical texts, contributing to education and understanding of history. The analysis of ancient sources fosters critical thinking and historical research skills.