It can be assumed that not one story has been rewritten and retold as much as the tale of Alexander the Great. Alexander was crowned king at twenty years old after his father’s death, and for most of his kingship, he traveled on a military campaign in hopes of conquering the known world. However, depending on the translation, his biological father differs. Therefore, he is claimed by a father almost as much as he is reshaped in order for different people, religions, and cultures to obtain a relation with his “greatness.” Considering the tale of Alexander the Great is so prevalent throughout the world, many have adopted it to fit their own cultures in hopes to be a part of his powerful legend. Richard Stoneman’s, translation of the first romance, …show more content…
Selden justifies this in his text, “Mapping the Alexander Romance”, when he explains that the Alexander Romance is “a work that survives in several dozen languages as well over a hundred different versions, none of which can claim to be original or definitive in form” (34). The reign of Alexander has been adopted by countless different cultures, for the reason that each one wants to be a part of the legendary empire because of the leadership skills, ruthlessness, undefeated military record that Alexander displayed during his reign. Selden goes on, explaining that “The Alexander Romance [was] the single most popular narrative for roughly a millennium and a half, in effect a protean network of interrelated texts disseminated over massive tracts of Asia, Africa, and Europe” (34). Thus, the focus and characters of the tale are quick to change based on the differing cultural perspectives and values, reasons for telling the story, and also as the story travelled so much, it had to change in order to stay relevant. The Pseudo-Callisthenes is the first Romance formed around the historical documentation of Alexander, so it can be suggested that it is the closest in relation to the true story. In the article, “Arrian and the Greek Alexander Romance”, Jeremy Mclnerney explains that, “Time and time again the neat distinction between history and romance proves illusory” (429). So, because there have been many versions adapted from the Pseudo-Callisthenes, pushing it further from the original, it is often confusing which is true and which is fantastical. The inability to make the distinction is makes no difference because it has helped other cultures come closer together and ultimately benefit from their