Alexander, from the Historia de Preliis to the Alexandreis

The literary canon of Alexander the Great is vast, both temporally and textually. Naturally, among the great assortment of texts, there exist unique interpretations of the protagonist. In particular, marked differences exist in the characterization of Alexander between the Historia de Preliis Alexandri Magni, and the Alexandreis by Walter of Châtillon: in the former, he is a perfect protagonist from the start; in the latter, he is a child who has room to grow. 

The Alexander of the Historia de Preliis is the archetypal hero: he is unfalteringly wise, outpacing even adults while only in the bloom of his youth; he is the perfect leader, commanding his troops always with an unerring hand. Though his dialogue may come off as condescending and his actions brutish, it is clear through the author’s narration that nevertheless he is to be respected as one of the greatest kings of all time with an upright, irreproachable character. 

From the outset, Alexander is described with such words as “strong, daring and intelligent,” well-educated by the philosophers he was surrounded with. When faced with his first real challenge from an opponent, Nicolaus, rather than rising to inflammatory words, he instead, “in accordance with his training and his nature, [keeps] his composure” (9). Even on occasions when it does seem that Alexander’s behavior is incorrect, the narration disparages the notion. When Alexander is slighted by Lysias, and in response attacks and kills him, he speaks to his father in justification of himself: “Don’t be troubled by my killing Lysias. I did well to strike him since he should not have said what he said to me. You were wrong in attacking me to kill me with your sword” (10). In this scene, Alexander is in a position of power; he has approached his father as an equal, and speaks to him in judgment rather than as a son or a subject. In establishing his authority and righteousness like this, the narration paints him as correct. Thus, while we as readers may initially have been disturbed by the act, we are led to the conclusion that according to this code of morals or chivalry, it was correct for Alexander to respond as he did. Throughout the book, Alexander is similarly described, remaining the ideal image of a king and commander as he conquers his way through the world. 

In Walter's Alexandreis, Alexander is portrayed almost as the opposite: he is an impetuous young man, at times rash, and seemingly has much more to learn from the adults around him. Though his actions may not change from the fundamental Alexander story, so to speak, they are given a different bent by the narration, which instead of portraying him as a man who can do no wrong, admonishes him for the mistakes he makes. 

In the Alexandreis, any examination of Alexander’s character must be undertaken in conjunction with at least a brief study of Darius's. As Alexander and Darius are established to be enemies very early on, they serve as foils for one another; therefore, we can assume that the traits Darius is notable for are the traits that Alexander lacks. Alexander has not been stripped of all of the greatness that he possesses in the Historia de Preliis; he retains a kingly bearing and is an eager learner. Rather, the greatest change in the Alexandreis is how the narrative approaches him: instead of being the immovable, always-righteous hero of the narration regardless of his actions, as he is in the Historia de Preliis, he is allowed to be incorrect. Here, when Alexander takes ill from jumping into a channel in Sicily, he is unable to wait for treatment, filled with “reckless desire and vehemence” to hurry onward (2.243). He throws a fit like a child, unwilling to listen to his counsel. This occurs once more in the fourth book: Alexander asks counsel of his dukes — but upon receiving it, he scorns the one who gives it (4.163-165).

Conversely, Darius is described using almost completely opposite terms: he is “placid” looking upon his troops, offering prayers befitting his age — which is only further emphasized in the description of his face as “long-seasoned” (2.373-375). In battle, he “deliberat[es] wisely” on his troops’ actions to devise a “useful plan, much to his advantage” (2.486-8). The narrative implies that he only loses against Alexander due to the meddlings of fate, further demonstrating that Darius is supposed to be read as a great king regardless of outcome: “That shameless Fortune wields power beyond reason” (2.489-90). Again, we examine Darius not for the purpose of understanding him, but to understand Alexander as his antithesis: Darius’s age and corresponding wisdom is pitted against Alexander’s relative inexperience and youth.

While Alexander undoubtedly has the makings of a conqueror, as Aristotle mentions, he is not as perfectly developed from inception as he might be in the Historia de Preliis. Rather, Walter's Alexander has room for improvement: he is only a boy, and has yet to grow into the man we are used to seeing, unwavering in judgment and always standing correct as a hero.