# The Anabasis of Alexander/Book VII/Chapter XXX

Layout 2
CHAPTER XXX.
Eulogy of Alexander.
Whoever therefore reproaches Alexander as a bad man, let him do so; but let him first not only bring before his mind all his actions deserving reproach, but also gather ​into one view all his deeds of every kind. Then, indeed, let him reflect who he is himself, and what kind of fortune he has experienced; and then consider who that man was whom he reproaches as bad, and to what a height of human success he attained, becoming without any dispute king of both continents, and reaching every place by his fame; while he himself who reproaches him is of smaller account, spending his labour on petty objects, which, however, he does not succeed in effecting, petty as they are. For my own part, I think there was at that time no race of men, no city, nor even a single individual to whom Alexander's name and fame had not penetrated. For this reason it seems to me that a hero totally unlike any other human being could not have been born without the agency of the deity. And this is said to have been revealed after Alexander's death by the oracular responses, by the visions which presented themselves to various people, and by the dreams which were seen by different individuals. It is also shown by the honour paid to him by men up to the present time, and by the recollection which is still held of him as more than human. Even at the present time, after so long an interval, other oracular responses in his honour have been received by the nation of the Macedonians. In relating the history of Alexander's achievements, there are some things which I have been compelled to censure; but I am not ashamed to admire Alexander himself. Those actions I have branded as bad, both from a regard to my own veracity, and at the same time for the benefit of mankind. For this ​reason I think that I undertook the task of writing this history not without the divine inspiration.
The End of the History of Alexander's Deeds.
* ↑ Europe and Asia. Arrian reckoned Libya, or Africa, as a part of Asia. See iii. 30; v. 26; vii. 1.
* ↑ Dr. Leonhard Sohmitz says:—"Arrian is in this work one of the most excellent writers of his time, above which he is raised by his simplicity and his unbiassed judgment. Great as his merits thus are as an historian, they are yet surpassed by his exeellnce as an historical critic. His Anabasis is based upon the most trustworthy historians among the contemporaries of Alexander, such as Ptolemy, Aristobulus, which two he chiefly followed, Diodotus of Erythrae, Eumenes of Cardia, Nearchus of Crete, and Megasthenes; and his sound judgment as to who deserved credit, justly led him to reject such authors as Onesicritus, Callisthenes, and others. No one at all acquainted with this work of Arrians can refuse his assent to the opinion of Photius (p. 73; comp. Lucian, Alex., 2), that Arrian was the best among the numerous historians of Alexander. One of the great merits of the work, independent of those already mentioned, is the clearness and distinctness with which he describes all military movements and operations, the drawing up of the armies for battle, and the conduct of battles and sieges.' In all these respects the Anabasis is a masterly production, and Arrian shows that he himself possessed a thorough practical knowledge of military affairs. He seldom introduces speeches, but wherever he does he shows a profound knowledge of man; and the speech of Alexander to his rebellious soldiers, and the reply of Coenus, as well as some other speeches, are masterly specimens of oratory. Everything, moreover, which is not necessary to make his narrative clear is carefully avoided." See Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography.