796
edits
Changes
no edit summary
The final point to consider in the argument against Alexander having been assassinated are the sources themselves. Besides probably being the result of a propaganda campaign, they were written much later and therefore can be considered apocryphal. Not only that, but one must also consider the writings of the first and second century AD Greek biographer, Plutarch. The Greek biographer was adamant that Alexander did not die at the hands of others.
“He gave a splendid banquet in honour of Nearchus, after which he took a bath as his custom was, with the intention of going to bed soon afterwards. But when Medius invited him, he went to his house to join a party, and there, after drinking all through the next day, he began to feel feverish. This did not happen after he had drained Heracles’ cup, nor did he become conscious of a sudden pain in the back as if he had been pierced by a spear: these are details with which certain historians felt obliged to embellish the occasion, and thus invent a tragic and moving finale to a great action. Aristobulus tells us that he was seized with a raging fever, that when he became very thirsty he drank wine which made him delirious, and that he died on the thirteenth day of the month of Daesius. <ref> Diodorus SiculusPlutarch. <i> The Library Age of HistoryAlexander: Ten Greek Lives by Plutarch.</i> Translated by CIan Scott Kilvert and Timothy E. Bradford WellesDuff. (Cambridge, MassachusettsLondon: Harvard University PressPenguin, 19632012), XVII<i>Alexander</i>, 11875</ref>
===Conclusion===
