Sam,

Perhaps even if your interpretation of the unpleasant qualities of Alexander are correct and I have no reason to doubt you, it is now far too late to remove all the copies of the 1956 version of Hollywood’s representation of Richard Burton in the role of the heroic Alexander the Great, including his accepted (in those days) nationality. Greek, which you support.

That's the major problem with the past, no one can be sure how much of it is fiction or how little is the real story as it loses (or gains) so much in the re-telling, re-writing, re-printing and re-arranging to fit the desires and commercial motivations of following generations.
Christianity is a typical case. Just look at the multi-billion dollar industry involved there.

May I respectfully suggest that anyone with a penchant for discovering the real truth from ancient times which you have clearly shown in this article, should apply their research skills to the ‘old chestnut’, Christianity. But be warned. There are just too many Hollywood blockbusters made on this subject and associated stories to recall from the film studios. As for the bookshops, religious bric-a-brac, sacred places, social clubs, schools etc., a major task. On the other hand, if you are able to amend the stories from those times and they are substantially different, hopefully also accurate, maybe with a happy ending as well, this could open up a whole new industry in films, books and religious education, all very profitable enterprises and which could go a long way to revitalising the Australian film industry, labouring at the moment.

A worthy project and equally deserving of government support when compared to roof insulation, Education Revolutions, School Chaplain programs and extravagant advertising campaigns for new taxes.

You may be able to even use The Lodge for a raffle if the ‘bloke” is finished with it. A trip to Jerusalem would be a worthy prize if the Israelis let you in, that is. They have a slightly different version of the story as do hundreds of other “religions”, all with their own spin.

Challenging though

Good luck.

It is probably inappropriate to write that Alexander was Greek, given that that description is probably very much after-the-event, except in a very broad geographical sense, that people saw themselves as Corinthians, Ionians, Boeotians, Atticans, Lydians, Pontians, whatever, known by island or town and valley and alliance and confederation, rather than as Greek or Hellenic.

Similarly what counted as 'Macedon' greatly varied in location and size from Phillip's time through the Byzantine and Turkish years up to the present: 'Macedonia' has moved around, from around Salonika to Thrace into Bulgaria, then back west and north to 'its' present location.

But calling Alexander or Phillip Greek is as inappropriate as calling Vercingetorix French or Boadicca English (which doesn't stop people doing just that).

So on the one hand, IMHO, it is inappropriate to call Alexander Greek OR Macedonian in the present-day sense, but apart from this, a country can call itself whatever the hell it likes.

Graham Phillips' analysis of 'Alexander the Great: Murder in Babylon' is interesting as I reveal that I am an avowed 'Alexander' freak. To my way of thinking Alexander of Macedonia was everything that Phillips says and more. But in my opinion was not simply a narcissistic psychopath, he was a psychopathic sadist. To explain, pschopathy of itself is a behaviour set that can be quite benign, it requires another dynamic to become malignant and sadism is what Alexander had in great measure. Where did all this come from? Olympia created a malignant environment for Alexander to grow monstrously therein. I perceive her as 'shelob' lurking menacingly of her web in the corner in Macedonia, until Cassander squashed her.

Subsequently Alexander had little love for his Macedonian or Hellenic troops, who he systematically dispensed with by various means. In fact it was often more dangerous to be an ally of Alexander than an enemy.

Whilst I have not read Graham Phillips' book, I will do so now. However I have read many others back to Arian and Curtius. The area the Phillips and other overlook that is an insight into Alexander's behaviours, as well as his maniacal treatment of other including the descendants of the Branchidae of Didymi, was the incredible number and severity of wounds, any of which would usually at least incapacitate a normal combatant if not prove fatal, and Alexander always bounced back with little effect shown (refer to the arrow wound that pierced his lung in India).

In the end, I concur with Phillips that Alexander was probably murdered by one of his close generals, but which one? His mumified remains were most probably destroyed by early Egyptian christians who saw everything that didn't conform to their narrow view of what was acceptable to christians as being from the dark side, so forensic analysis is now impossible.

I personally think that Ptolemy was perhaps the most calculating of his generals and was close enough to lace Alexander's wine with a poison, whilst he already had his eye on the throne of Egypt. But who knows?