Could the quarrel between Cleitus and Alexander have ended differently—without Cleitus’s death—given that both were intoxicated and the argument took place during a symposium? At that stage of the Asian campaign, and under those specific circumstances, why did Alexander feel entitled to punish Cleitus with death? This incident appears all the more striking considering that Alexander had always sought to project an image of self-control and magnanimity—refusing, for instance, to harm Darius’s family and often conducting himself with measured restraint in politically delicate situations. One might ask: was the killing truly necessary, or was it a tragic failure of temper? Above all, we know that the sources have exaggerated the conflict between Philip and Alexander—so it’s difficult to fully understand Alexander’s reaction.
Could it have ended differently? Almost certainly. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing. I will say, I don’t think he “punished” Kleitos with death intentionally. His immediate reaction to the murder tells us it wasn’t anything so calculated as a deliberate execution. Like much in ATG’s career, we may know what happened, more or less, but not WHY it happened. That’s where the interpretation of our later authors (or the missing contemporary authors) gets in the way.
Some modern historians have even called into question whether it happened at a symposion, seeing the event as part of a later Roman trope of Drunk Alexander. Lord knows, Seneca and others use it as an example of an inability to control one’s passions. Nonetheless, Macedonian drinking parties—albeit exaggerated beginning with the writings of Theopompos on—were a feature of Macedonian royal life. I could see one that ended in such a terrible tragedy.
So, Alexander killed Kleitos, but the circumstances are confused.
The reported argument between Alexander and Kleitos contained in any of our extant sources must, I think, be regarded has highly suspect. Even our so-called “best” historical source, Arrian, places the event out of order in his history to create a narrative about Alexander’s increasing descent into Asian “tyrannical” rule, a part of which includes the proskynesis event which my colleague Hugh Bowden has taken the air out of quite effectively. I no longer believe proskynesis happened.
So, if we reject the Roman-influenced narrative of good ol’ boy Macedonian upset at Alexander’s New Persian Airs, WHAT THE F. HAPPENED??! Why did Alexander and Kleitos fight?
I’m not sure there’s a certain answer. But I do recall that (I think?) Waldemar Heckel pointed out the Kleitos event occurred in the wake of the Marakanda massacre, and the symposion at which ATG speared Kleitos also featured an informal “play” wherein the commanders of the lost troops were spoofed as at fault for their own deaths. It was the worst loss the Macedonians had experienced in Asia. Alexander wasn’t there, and so the loss didn’t technically fall on his tally sheet.
Except it did, because he failed to clarify the chain of command. This apparently resulted in contravening orders from the commanders, and that ended in catastrophic loss. At the symposion, Alexander did not call down as inappropriate those presenting the play.
That infuriated Kleitos, who challenged Alexander, and Alexander replied in a rage.
To me, that actually makes some real sense. The whole Baktria-Sogdiana campaign wasn’t going well and the Marakanda massacre became a very bloody cherry on top. Kleitos dared to call out Alexander for it. Things got really ugly…and just as bloody.
If there was any silver lining, it’s that Alexander had some sense knocked into him. He looked more closely at the conflict. After this event, when he captured the Sogdian Rock and (maybe?) Roxana, he married his way out of the war in Baktria-Sogdiana. I say maybe captured Roxana as it’s unclear if he acquired her there or earlier. Either way, he married her now and was able to leave the region (in peace) about three months later. The Marakanda massacre and murder of Kleitos appear to have been turning points in how ATG assessed his regional strategy.
I am not so cynical about Alexander that I doubt his sincere upset over what he did. That’s part of why I think he (and Kleitos) may really have been drunk. But he appears to have learned something from it.