Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son ... - Historia Antigua

“YOU SHOULD NEVER MEET YOUR HEROES . . . ” 181
dynastic quality of the ties that bind Alexander into the Roman historical
imagination. Such a reading models mid-Republican Rome as a
parallel for Philip, and makes Alexander at once son of Philip, by
transference heir to Rome’s idealized Republic, and an intriguing “what
if . . . ?” for testing alternative developments in Roman autocratic ideology.
Valerius’ Alexander remains notionally “alien,” placed in the
“external” section of each theme’s elaboration, and Valerius’ Preface is
intriguingly specifi c on the framework: he will split his categories by
defi ning each event or noteworthy saying as either from the city of
Rome ( urbis Romae) or drawn from external peoples ( externarumque
gentium). Nevertheless, this split is undermined fairly quickly when
he reaches his fi rst transition between “us” and “them.” Discussing
Masinissa’s refusal to accept ivory plundered from Juno’s temple at
Melita causes Valerius to exclaim: “Yet why restrict an assessment of
customs by focusing on nationality? One [Masinissa] whose origins
were in the midst of barbarity [foreign/uncivilized] undid the sacrilege
of another . . . .” 23
2. Alexander and Hannibal
At Campana luxuria perquam utilis nostrae ciuitati fuit: inuictum
enim armis Hanibalem illecebris suis complexa uincendum
Romano militia tradidit. Illa uigilantissimum ducem, illa exercitum
acerrimum dapibus largis, abundanti uino unguentorum fragrantia,
ueneris usu lasciuiore ad somnum et delicias euocauit . . .
adeo ut nescias ab hostibusne an ab illis capi perniciosius habendum
sit? (9.1 ext.1)
But Campanian luxury was extremely useful to our state: for
having embraced Hannibal, unconquered in arms, by means of its
blandishments, it handed him over for conquest to the Roman
military. It lured the most vigilant commander, the keenest army,
with lavish feasts, plentiful wine, the scent of perfumed oils, the
most lascivious sexual practice, into slumber and frivolities . . . so
that it’s hard to know whether capture by enemies or by these [the
temptations of luxury] should be regarded as more pernicious.
This paradox situates Valerius’ use of Alexander in the didactic tradition
of ethnographic historiography exemplifi ed by Sallust, nearly
two generations before. When the entire world is Rome, how can foreign
characteristics be separated effectively from “Roman” qualities?
That Valerius recognizes this problem is signifi cant for understanding
the role of his two favorite foreign exempla: Alexander and Hannibal.