Alexander The Great Historiographies

History as we know it is divided into two major groups, those being history and historiographies. History is what is commonly known as facts, such as events that have happened throughout the course of time. An example of history would be that Alexander the Great ruled as king over the Macedonian Empire. A historiography of that would be everything that we know in regards to Alexander’s kingship over the Macedonian Empire. We know that Alexander was king, but everything that we know about his kingship is told to us by historians. The problem with historiographies is that every historian is going to have a different interpretation of history, and the events that have taken place. The historian Leopold von Ranke said that the “strict presentation
The official tradition says that untying the knot was easy for Alexander, and that he simply removed a single pin that allowed him to free the wagon. Plutarch cites Aristobulus as a primary source for the official tradition of belief about the events at the Gordian Knot. Aristobulus was someone who was with Alexander throughout his conquest of Persia; he was someone very close to Alexander both in court and in life. He was also likely with Alexander in Gordium when he untied the knot. Even if Aristobulus was an eyewitness to these events, there is no way for us to be able to confirm whether or not Aristobulus was telling the truth about what really happened at the Gordian Knot. Although Ranke’s ideal version of history is one in which the people that contribute to what we know about historical events always tell the truth, that is simply not the case in reality. Everyone’s motivations are not the same as Ranke’s. Often times people manipulate the truth for a variety of different reasons. It can be speculated that Aristobulus could have manipulated his version of the story of Alexander and Gordian Knot to benefit Alexander in his conquest by further validating him as the rightful ruler of the known world. After all, it would
The only difference is that Rufus tells us only one possible progression of events opposed to Plutarch and Arrian who give us two. Another slight difference in Rufus’s telling of the story is that Rufus leaves out information about his sources, whereas Plutarch and Arrian both give us the origins of their stories. These differences serve to point out that Rufus could have possibly had different intentions than Plutarch and Arrian. Rufus only gives the vulgate story, but was probably aware of the official tradition and chose to leave it out. Perhaps, Rufus was sure that the vulgate tradition was true and that the official tradition was not. More likely than that, Rufus could have believed that only mentioning the vulgate story would best suit his personal interests. Whether his interests were in shaping people’s view of Alexander, or simply writing what was popular at the time, we can never know. Another possibility is that the vulgate tradition was the only version of the story that Rufus had heard. It is also possible that the vulgate tradition was the version of the story that Rufus genuinely believed to be true. Plutarch and Arrian both admitted that there were at least two different tellings of the story. They even tell us that they are not sure of which story is correct. Rufus’ account on the other hand, presents no such information, instead