A psychoanalytic study of Alexander the Great

The purpose of this paper was to demonstrate how Freudian concepts such as the Oedipus complex, castration anxiety, fear of loss of love, the psychosexual stages of development, and the tripartite structure of personality can be used to understand the life and achievements of Alexander the Great. To accomplish this purpose, specific incidents, myths, and relationships in Alexander's life were analyzed from a Freudian psychoanalytic perspective. Green (1991), in his recent biography of Alexander, has questioned the merit of using Freudian concepts to understand Alexander's character. In fact, he stated specifically: If he (Alexander) had any kind of Oedipus complex it came in a poor second to the burning dynastic ambition which Olympias so sedulously fostered in him; those who insist on his psychological motivation would do better to take Adler as their mentor than Freud (p.56). Later, in the concluding section of his book, Green (1991, pp. 486-487) discounted Freudian interpretations of Alexander's distaste for sex, the rumors of his homosexual liaisons, his partiality for middle-aged or elderly ladies, and the systematic domination of his early years by Olympias as little more than the projected fears and desires of the interpreters. And again, an Adlerian power-complex paradigm was suggested as the preferable theoretical framework to use. Green's argument was based primarily on an exchange, reported originally by Plutarch, which took place between Alexander and Philip prior to Alexander's tutorship with Aristotle. Purportedly, Philip enjoined his son to study hard and pay close attention to all Aristotle said "so that you may not do a great many things of the sort that I am sorry I have done." At this point, Alexander "somewhat pertly" took Philip to task "because he was having children by other women besides his wife." Philip's reply was: "Well then, if you have many competitors for the kingdom, prove yourself honorable and good, so that you may obtain the kingdom not because of me, but because of yourself." Green interpreted this exchange as confirming that Alexander was more interested in his succession to the throne (power) than in any sexual relationships Philip might be having with any women other than Olympias. That is, Alexander's concern in this exchange was not about Philip's marital infidelity per se, but rather about the prospect of potential competitors (other children) for the throne. Significantly, by emphasizing the manifest content of the exchange, Green ignored a myriad of other possible fears and wishes on Alexander's part, including the fear of castration, the wish to have sex (like his father) with Olympias and other women, the wish to challenge his father's authority and superiority, the fear of loss of love, and the wish (given Philip's homosexual exploits with other boys) to have sex with Philip. Moreover, one could easily explain what Green has described as "the burning dynastic ambition which Olympias so sedulously fostered in him" (p.56), and Alexander's so called "power-complex" in terms which are perfectly consistent with drive/structure theory (e.g., see Freud, 1900/1953a and Freud, 1914/1957, respectively). In other words, Green's arguments against the possibility of a Freudian solution to the puzzle of Alexander's character are less than compelling. By contrast, as demonstrated in this paper, a plethora of historical data exist to suggest that much of Alexander's personality structure and behavior can be explained by his unresolved Oedipus complex, the ambition and self-confidence instilled in him by Olympias, the anal-sadistic and narcissistic organization of his character, his unconscious wish to please his mother, and his being lapped (from birth) in the myth of the hero. Although it is risky, at best, to attempt to analyze an individual without the benefit of clinical data, and even more risky to base such an analysis on fragmentary and often contradictory data assimilated long