From there, RLF addresses one prevalent explanation that Alexander's desire to visit the oracle at Siwah stemmed from his coronation at Pharaoh in Egypt. In 4th century Egypt, a Pharaoh would have been worshipped as a "son of Amun" (Remember: Amun was the chief Egyptian god. Zeus was the chief Greek god. These gods were conflated by the Greeks into Zeus-Ammon). According to this explanation, Alexander sought out the oracle in the Libyan desert in order to learn more about his new status as the son of Amun.

RLF shoots this idea down for a couple of reasons: #1 - it's not even clear that Alexander was ever formally made pharaoh. Besides, even if he was, Alexander didn't seem to value the title very seriously, as it is not mentioned directly in the ancient sources at all.

#2 - even if Alexander was crowned pharaoh in Egypt, that would not necessarily lead him to be more interested in an oracle in Libya. The king of the Egyptian gods, Amun, had his own temples and high priests much closer to Memphis whom Alexander could consult. RLF elaborates below:

"Only in one posthumous Greek statue is Alexander ever shown with the crown and symbols of a Pharaoh; none of his friends or historians is known to have alluded to his kingship in Egypt at any other time, and it did not influence his life, any more than later, when he became king of Persia, did he show any grasp or concern for the equally holy doctrines of the god Ahura Mazda. And yet Siwah and his sonship of Zeus were to remain lively themes until the very last year of his reign when Egypt had been forgotten..." (213).

According to RLF, it was Alexander's Greek-ness, not his new ties to Egypt, which helps explain his venture:

"Siwah was not a convenient or obvious place to learn about the mystique of Amun, even if Alexander had set out with this in mind; it was the Delphi of the Greek East and as a Hellene, not as Pharaoh, Alexander would be curious about a god who was known and patronized by Greeks because of his truthfulness. Zeus Ammon at Siwah was the last available oracle of Greek repute before Alexander led his troops inland into Asia, and Alexander wished to consult him for this simple reason alone" (204).

But wishing to consult an oracle and risking one's life, and legacy, to do so is quite another. So what compelled Alexander to take such a dramatic and unexpected detour into the Libyan desert? RLF believes this trip wasn't quite as irrational and surprising as the ancient historians have led us to believe.

Curtius and Diodorus tell us that Alexander met with ambassadors from the Greek city of Cyrene while en route to Siwah, who brought him gifts and became his allies. Cyrene was a city on the Libyan (Mediterranean) coast, settled by Greeks in the 7th century, and was the primary hub of trade in the region at the time. The Greeks who lived there were the ones who bridged the gap of Libyan/Egyptian religion (Amun) with orthodox Greek religion (Zeus).

RLF believes that Alexander's westward path from Alexandria actually fit his normal pattern as a conqueror and that the Oracle of Ammon was probably not top of mind until he met with the leaders of Cyrene:

"...it was through Cyrene that the Greek world had first come to think highly of Ammon and it was surely the same city's envoys who first reminded Alexander of the god's existence. Very possibly, they did not mention the oasis until Alexander had taken up their offer, gone to visit their cities and reached the town of Paraetonium, 165 miles west of Alexandria and ten miles beyond a usual turning-off point for pilgrims to Siwah. If so, Alexander would have turned west not to consult the god but to follow his envoys from Cyrene and secure his frontier with Libya, an aim which is in keeping with his methods as a general. Only when strategy was satisfied did he think of a detour to Ammon, a familiar and truthful oracle" (204-205).

This is a compelling explanation that removes some of the mystery from the equation. The decision to visit Siwah didn't come on suddenly like some of the ancient historians imply. Rather, it happened organically based on Alexander's interaction with the peoples he encountered - they persuaded him to seek out the oracle. Whether he was familiar with Zeus-Ammon before then or not, Alexander's ties to Zeus through the royal family of Macedon along with his heightened religiosity and tolerance for risk made the trip inevitable.

A Turning Point

Robin Lane Fox presents a convincing analysis of Alexander's reasons for visiting Siwah in the first place. But how does he make sense of Alexander's experience there and his later association with Zeus-Ammon?

Like many others, he believes Alexander's experience at the oasis was a pivotal moment in his life. But it may not have been the private conversation with the oracle that mattered the most. Instead, it was Plutarch's account - of the high priest fumbling his introduction - that made the most impact.

As quoted earlier in this article, the high priest apparently greeted Alexander publicly as "Zeus' son" instead of "my son". Although the reason for this was clearly a mispronunciation, it was commonplace among traveling Greeks of the time to draw what they wished from these kinds of accident-prone interactions.

RLF goes into more detail on this subject in his book Traveling Heroes In the Epic Age of Homer. In it, he explains the simplistic connections Alexander and other 4th century travelers tended to draw between their own culture and that of foreigners. For instance, he references Alexander and his army's belief that the Greek hero-god Dionysus had visited a settlement in India they called Nysa. "Plainly they had half-understood these names from the replies of local people whom they questioned through interpreters..." RLF explains (178). He also suggests the landscape around Nysa, which featured quite a bit of ivy - a symbol of Dionysus - was critical to them coming to this conclusion.

Alexander's men, thousands of miles from home, proactively sought to insert their own religious legends into the lands and events happening around them. It did not take any kind of "proof" to convince them - a similar-sounding word or strange geological find was more than enough evidence.

In other words, for Alexander, a clear mistake on the part of the High Priest at Siwah would not necessarily have been discarded - especially if it was in agreement with his own pre-existing beliefs. Alexander may not have believed he was literally the son of Zeus before hearing that title spoken by the priest, but the idea was entirely in sync with the mainstream Greek religion of the time.

The heroes who Alexander idolized as a boy, like Achilles and Heracles, often had one immortal parent. Given Alexander's royal blood (which connected back to Heracles and Zeus) and his meteoric rise to power in the years preceding his Siwah adventure (he had already consolidated his rule over Greece and the Phoenician coast), it's not a stretch to think he was beginning to see himself as an equal to these heroes, if he hadn't all along. RLF helps bring together these various threads:

"The kings and heroes of myth and of Homer's epic were agreed to be children of Zeus: Alexander, like many, may have come to believe of himself what he had begun by reading of others. The belief was a Homeric one, entirely in keeping with the rivalry of Achilles which was Alexander's mainspring; if it had been latent when he entered Egypt, the traditions of the Pharaoh's divine sonship and the proceedings at Siwah's oracle could have combined to confirm it and cause its publication through Callisthenes* to the Greek world" (216).

*Callisthenes was Alexander's official court historian through most of his travels in Asia.

Furthermore, a recent trend may have influenced Alexander's desire to associate himself with a god. Mortals being elevated to a godlike status was not solely found with the divine heroes of the distant past. Lysander, a Spartan admiral of the 5th and early 4th centuries BCE, was worshipped as a god on the island of Samos and Dionysius II, a ruler of Syracuse in the 4th century, claimed to be Apollo's son.

Most importantly of all, Philip II of Macedon, Alexander's father, is cited as one of the first Greek kings to award himself a divine, or at least semi-divine, status. He famously included a status of himself along those of the Olympians at his daughter's wedding, which suggested to some he wished to be regarded as their equal. Philip also depicted himself with similar traits to Zeus on coins minted during his reign.

Although he did not claim to be directly descended from a god, Philip II helped set the stage for his son's relationship with Zeus-Ammon. Like so many other aspects of his life, Alexander appears to have merely picked up where his father left off.

The Probable vs. The Possible

In Robin Lane Fox's view, a "fortunate slip of the priest's tongue" served to confirm "a belief which had long been growing on him" (214) - that he was directly descended from Zeus. Although this belief is entirely explainable through Alexander's religiosity, royalty, and the example of his father, RLF seeks to incorporate the rumors of Alexander's divine birth into his theory.

He references a letter, supposedly sent from Alexander to his mother Olympias, in which Alexander promises to tell only her the secrets he learned from the oracle upon his return to Macedon. Strangely, RLF appears to give this alleged correspondence some credence while simultaneously acknowledging the tremendous prevalence of "fictitious correspondence in Alexander's name" (216).

It is tempting to follow these threads into the mists of Alexander's family dynamics. Olympias, by all accounts, was an enigmatic figure. An initiate of the secretive, orgiastic cult of Dionysus, she was prone to display bizarre, intimidating behavior (like lying in bed with snakes). She also had a major falling out with her husband, King Philip, during Alexander's childhood. Some even accused her of plotting her husband's assassination. RLF sees this tension as playing a role in Alexander's search for a divine father:

"Disappointed in her marriage or keen to assert her superiority over Philip's many other women, she might well have spread a story that her son was special because he owed nothing to Philip and was child of the Greek god Zeus" (215).

But one could just as easily argue that Olympias, a cutthroat defender of her place as Queen, would never have spread any rumor that suggested Alexander was not part of Philip's bloodline. This could have undermined his status as the rightful heir to the throne of Macedon.

Plutarch isn't sure what side to take on Olympias' gossip:

"According to Eratosthenes, Olympias, when she sent Alexander on his way to lead the great expedition to the East, confided to him alone the secret of his conception and urged him to show himself worthy of his divine parentage. But other authors maintain that she repudiated this story and used to say, 'Will Alexander never stop making Hera jealous of me?'" (Book 3)

The implication is that Alexander was spreading a falsehood that could offend the gods.

Did Olympias tell Alexander one thing and the public something different? One possibility is that Olympias did spread a rumor about Alexander's divine birth while Philip was alive, as a means to undermine him, but after Philip's death denied them in order to protect her son's rightful claim to the throne.