Oliver Stone is known for making epic historical and biographical movies (such as JFK and The Doors)that feature long runtimes and are successful at the box office. Many of Stone’s films revolve around a specific historical personality and offer plenty of conspiracy theories along the way.
Although his 2004 biopic Alexander was short of conspiracy theories, it did hint that the Macedonian general and king was poisoned by his own subordinates. So where did Stone get this idea, and is it true?
Well, Oliver Stone’s conspiracy theory regarding Alexander the Great’s death was not original; it has actually circulated for over two thousand years.
Alexander III (Alexander the Great) was the king of the Greek-speaking kingdom of Macedon, who left his kingdom in 334 BC with his vast army. Within four years, he had conquered the Persian Empire and, along with it, most of the civilized world. Spurred on by a thirst for knowledge and war, Alexander led his men further east to the Indus River and the boundaries of India, until his men had had enough and wanted to go home. Alexander then set up court for his new empire in the ancient Mesopotamian capital of Babylon, where he lived until he died in 323 at the ripe age of thirty-two.
Alexander’s death sent the Greek world into civil war as his generals fought for their piece of the pie. His only living child was a son he had with a non-Greek woman, which meant that most of Greek world would never have accepted him as king.
Almost immediately, Alexander’s mother Olympias began spreading the story that Antipater, one of Alexander’s trusted generals, had one of his sons poison Alexander. The Antipater conspiracy theory was documented by the first-century BC Greek historian, Diodorus, and the second-century AD Greek historian Arrian.
If it was written down then it must be true, right?
Writers, even historians who claim to be objective, still have opinions, which can sometimes turn into an agenda. Even ancient writers were guilty of having agendas—maybe even more so. Also, if one looks at the case logically, there was no reason for Antipater and his sons to have killed Alexander. They didn’t try to usurp the empire when he died, and they didn’t benefit from Alexander’s death more than any of the other generals.
Finally, other sources, such as the second-century AD historian Plutarch, proclaimed that all stories that stated Antipater and his family were behind Alexander’s death came from Olympias. The latter was trying to put her grandson, Alexander’s son, on the throne which would give her the ultimate power.
If Alexander the Great wasn’t poisoned, how did he die?
The sources all agree that he died from a fever, which was not uncommon during that period in history. Alexander was a general who personally led his troops into battle, and he incurred several serious injuries as a result. In an era long before antibiotic medication existed, there is a very high probability that Alexander received an infection from one of his wounds that turned into a fever and killed him.
Oliver Stone is a filmmaker not a historian. Death by assassination definitely sounds more interesting in a movie than an infection, right?