Introduction

The study of Alexander the Great has long been dominated by close reading and interpretation of primary sources. While these methods remain invaluable, I sought to create a method of analyzing these sources from an empirical basis and in aggregate. Below I present a novel pipeline for processing and searching key historical texts on Alexander, enabling researchers to uncover semantic relationships and patterns across multiple sources simultaneously.

Methodology

The pipeline incorporates three main historical sources on Alexander: Arrian, Plutarch, and Diodorus. To create a comprehensive, searchable database, I scraped the Loeb Classical Library translations of these texts, extracting both the original Greek and the English translations. This data was then fed into a processing script that generated embeddings for each page of text, along with preserving the raw content in both languages.

Embeddings, in this context, refer to vector representations of text that capture semantic meaning. These dense vectors allow for the comparison of textual similarity beyond mere lexical matching. For this project, embeddings were calculated using two methods:

1. BERT

2. OpenAI's API

Both sets of processed embeddings are available in the project's GitHub repository, allowing for immediate use of the search feature without the need for reprocessing.

Search Functionality

The 'analyze_texts.py' script enables searching of either the BERT or OpenAI embedding databases. Users can input any query to retrieve semantically similar quotes from all included texts. The search algorithm combines two methods:

1. Cosine similarity search: This method computes the cosine of the angle between the query embedding and the embeddings of the text chunks, providing a measure of semantic similarity.

2. Multi-n-gram search: This approach identifies matching sequences of n consecutive words between the query and the text chunks, allowing for detection of phrase-level similarities.

The script creates a combined score from these two methods, with user-adjustable weighting for each component. Additionally, a similarity threshold can be set to focus analysis on the upper tail of the distribution, facilitating examination of the most similar text chunks.

Results: A Control Study

To test the efficacy of this method, I conducted a search for a phrase characteristic of Arrian's style. Arrian frequently describes Alexander as being "seized by a desire" (λαμβάνει αὐτὸν πόθος) when embarking on significant endeavors, such as sacrificing to Athena or crossing the Jaxartes river.

The search query encompassed variations of this phrasing in both English and Greek:

English: "Alexander seized with a desire or longing to sacrifice to Athena, to go beyond the Jaxartes, to ascend to the citadel, overcome with a desire, overcome with a longing, filled with a desire, filled with a longing."

Greek: "λαμβάνει αὐτὸν πόθος τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ θῦσαι, καὶ ἅμα πόθος ἔλαβεν αὐτὸν ἐπέκεινα τοῦ Ἰαξάρτου ἐλθεῖν, λαμβάνει αὐτὸν πόθος, λαμβάνει αὐτὸν ἐπιθυμία, ἔλαβεν αὐτὸν πόθος, ἔλαβεν αὐτὸν ἐπιθυμία, πόθος τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου, ἐπιθυμία τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου."

As anticipated, the results showed a predominance of Arrian quotes at the upper end of the similarity distribution, with scores approaching the maximum of 2. However, the search also revealed high-scoring passages from other authors that provided intriguing parallels:

1. Diodorus (Page 179) describes the people of Carthage as being "filled with superstitious dread" after neglecting their religious duties.

2. Plutarch (Page 433) portrays Alexander in extreme grief, describing him as "filled with folly, the Alexander who was now become a prey to his fears".

Interestingly, when the search was conducted using the Greek query, the results were almost exclusively from Arrian, with one notable exception:

1. Plutarch's account of Alexander crossing the Hellespont (Page 263): "With such zeal and preparation of mind, he crossed the Hellespont" (τοιαύτῃ μὲν ὁρμῇ καὶ παρασκευῇ διανοίας τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον διεπέρασεν.).

The distribution graph of similarity scores for the Greek query clearly illustrates the dominance of Arrian in employing this particular phrasing, with a distinct peak for Arrian's text at higher similarity scores.

Historiographical Analysis of Alexander's Cultural Policies

It has often been a matter of debate among historians whether Alexander was a great unifier of the human race — spreading western values whilst integrating Persian practices and elites into his administration and the royal culture he was propagating — an opinion best summed up by Pierre Briant and Thomas R. Martin.

Pierre Briant, a leading scholar on Alexander and the Persian Empire, writes: "Alexander's policy was to respect local customs and religions, at least as long as they did not interfere with his own plans. He allowed the Babylonians to rebuild the temple of their god Marduk, and he made sacrifices to local gods in Egypt and elsewhere."

Thomas R. Martin, in his book "Ancient Greece", notes: "Alexander adopted elements of Persian court ceremony and dress, such as the practice of proskynesis (ritual prostration before the king). This policy of what has been called 'fusion' was meant to help him rule his ethnically diverse empire, but it alienated many of his Macedonian followers."

On the other hand, we have those who view Alexander in a more Machiavellian light, seeing him as a ruthless conqueror who was willing to do anything to achieve dominance over his empire, even in the adoption of foreign cultural practices.

Ian Worthington, in "Alexander the Great: Man and God", argues: "Alexander's adoption of Persian customs and his attempts to integrate Persians into his army and administration should be seen as pragmatic moves to consolidate his rule over a vast, multicultural empire rather than as evidence of genuine cultural tolerance."

A. B. Bosworth, in "Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great", states: "There is no evidence that Alexander ever envisaged a brotherhood of man or a fusion of races. His aim was a unity imposed from above, safeguarded by the power of the Macedonian army and the mystique of his own person."

Generally, the former opinion is today seen by historians as naive and a remnant of the romantic imperialist influence of British historians of the 19th century, while most would fall into the comfortably cynical Bosworth camp.

Empirical Analysis of Competing Theses

In an attempt to settle this debate, I created two queries reflecting each of these theses:

1. Pro unity of mankind (cultural integration): "Alexander's policy included respecting local customs and religions, as shown by his actions like allowing the Babylonians to rebuild the temple of Marduk and making sacrifices to local gods in Egypt. He adopted Persian court ceremonies and dress to help govern his diverse empire, indicating a vision of cultural integration and tolerance."

2. Anti unity of mankind (dominance): "Alexander's adoption of Persian customs and integration of Persians into his administration were pragmatic moves to consolidate his rule over a vast empire, not evidence of genuine cultural tolerance. His aim was a unity imposed from above, maintained by the power of the Macedonian army and his own personal mystique, rather than a brotherhood of man or fusion of races."

I used a high weighting on the cosine similarity (0.9) since much of this language is somewhat modern in its usage and prominence, and therefore it was best to search based on meaning rather than exact word similarity.

Results and Analysis

The results for the pro-unity campaign returned a few examples of Alexander's tolerance and attempts at cultural integration, namely Alexander’s rebuilding of the temple of Baal at Babylon (Arrian, 275), his allowance for the continuation of local customs in Sardis (71), and his sparing of the lives of the Tyrians (209).

However, terms like "cultural integration" did not exist in the ancient world (at least in our conception of it) and the Greek equivalents of these words or those with associated meaning do not appear anywhere in our sources (according to another search). The main reason that the above results were even returned is that they are from the examples given in the query. So it can be said that Alexander did not think of himself, nor did early sources provide any backing to the idea that he was a cultural integrator. The actions that he took may be associated with these ideas in their modern conception, but it can hardly be said that Alexander had this idea or any equivalent of it in his head at the time of his conquests.

The Bosworthian idea also lacks sufficient grounding in the primary sources. The results included mostly descriptions of various battles, executions etc., the most similar of which was not describing Alexander at all but in fact his father in his reorganization of the army (from Diodorus pg. Title: Diodorus Siculus Volume: VII Book: XVI Page: 241). In a similar way to the previous theory, the events may be interpreted to support Bosworth's theories but there is very little direct evidence of a sort of Machiavellian thought process or intent behind any of Alexander's actions or in the descriptions thereof, and therefore Bosworth's analysis says more about his view of the world than it does about Alexander's. Although his theory similarity results had a higher mean/median than did the unity of humankind theory, that is only because there are more numerous examples of descriptions of battles and violence as opposed to administration and policy as was the focus of our sources.

Limitations and Future Research

In order to find the truth of the matter — the true intentions behind Alexander's conquests — would take a great deal more investigation and research, especially into primary sources which we do not possess (namely one would desire the correspondences of Alexander himself). One could also extrapolate from broader political thought conceived of prior to or around Alexander's conquest in relation to east vs west, civilized vs barbarian etc. This would include a much larger corpus of textual analysis and because such sources would likely be limited in their scope would mean a potential significant bias.

Conclusion

Returning to the unity of man vs Machiavellian stratagem debate, it is clear from our analysis that both of these two interpretations have fairly little grounding in our sources and therefore their propagation is most reflective of a modern squabble: a debate over whether "imperialism", conquering, the spreading of values through force or policy can ever be a force for good in the world, or whether the western world should regret its having done so in the past as it was all part of some capitalistic or egotistical social current driven by selfish patriarchal interests.

My inkling is that there are ideas that are both worth spreading and implementing, there are those individuals and collectives that are willing to kill you for doing so, and you have every right then to respond in kind…and vice versa. Therefore change when viewed with a long enough time horizon is something that cannot be distinguished from either peaceful implementation or violent coercion. And so the debate among these historians is mostly rooted in them and the general social attitudes childishly refusing to accept this reality.