Hello,
I am writing a screenplay for a mini-series about the Diadochi wars. The pilot episode takes place in India, from the Battle of Hydaspes to Alexander's decision to attempt to cross the Gedrosian.
I'm trying to depict the very special relationship that Alexander had with his bodyguards, partly by the way they address him. In Oliver Stone's movie Alexander, they varied between calling him "Alexander" and "Sire", neither of which sound very good to me. In the novel The Persian Boy (which formed the basis of a lot of Stone's movie) Alexander states clearly that "any trooper" should address him as "Alexander". This also strikes me as unlikely.
Currently, I have everyone close to Alexander address him as "Chief". I got the idea from Soviet history; this is how Stalin's inner circle addressed him. I have everyone outside Alexander's inner circle address him as "my king".
Does this smell right to you? Or am I just wrong, and "Alexander" is the way to go? Any different suggestions?
Thanks in advance!
I'm not sure why you think "Alexander" sounds wrong. That is indeed what his bodyguards and officers would have prided themselves in calling him. Both "chief" and "my king" are completely unhistorical and wildly out of place for the setting.
Macedonian kings held a hereditary position, but still had to be formally "acclaimed" by the Assembly, which consisted of all adult male Macedonians in arms. This meant that the Macedonian army was formally the kingmaker, and that the authority of a king like Alexander rested on the consent of his troops. One consequence of this unusual relationship between king and army was that Macedonian kings deliberately cultivated an approachable manner. They were known to dress simply, to eat and drink the same fare as the men, and to demand no special rituals or forms of address. To keep on the good side of the men who had risen them to the throne, they tried to profile themselves as "one of the boys".
This went double for the bodyguards of the king. As a rule, these were members of the most powerful Macedonian noble families. Most of them had grown up together with the king in the Macedonian elite education system. Several of them may have been the king's romantic or sexual partners. Upon reaching adulthood, these men served together continuously as close confidants and companions in battle. They would not only address the king by his name; they would be outraged if they were told to address him any other way.
Alexander in fact got into trouble with his Macedonian soldiers for precisely this reason. Part of the struggle of his later reign was the need to unite two very different styles of kingship: the informal, first-among-equals Macedonian style, and the exalted, divinely-sanctioned Achaemenid Persian style. Over time, Alexander began to appropriate the customs of the Persian court in order to seem more kingly to his new subjects; this included the particular custom of proskynesis, or obeisance, which required those who approached the king to bow, kneel or even prostrate themselves before him. When the Macedonian officers learned of this, they lost their shit. To them, it was not only unacceptable and ridiculous but outright sacrilegious to treat a king with the kind of deference suited to gods (in Macedonian custom). They did not follow their king out of obligation to some exalted creature; they followed the man they could look in the eye and call Alexander.
Non-Macedonians, especially those from the rest of the Persian Empire, would have been more likely to address him with "O King" - the notion of personal allegiance expressed with the genitive ("my king") is alien to the ancient world.
Hi there - we're happy to approve your question related to your creative project, and we are happy for people to answer. However, we should warn you that many flairs have become reluctant to answer questions for aspiring novelists and the like, based on past experience: some people working on creative projects have a tendency to try to pump historians for trivia while ignoring the bigger points they were making, while others have a tendency to argue with historians when the historical reality does not line up with what's needed for a particular scene or characterization. Please respect the answers of people who have generously given you their time, even if it's not always what you want to hear.
Additionally, as amazing as our flair panel is, we should also point out that /r/AskHistorians is not a professional historical consultation service. If you're asking a question here because you need vital research for a future commercial product such as a historical novel, you may be better off engaging a historical consultant at a fair hourly rate to answer these questions for you. We don't know what the going rate for consultancy work would be in your locality, but it may be worth looking into that if you have in-depth or highly plot-reliant questions for this project. Some /r/AskHistorians flairs could be receptive to working as a consultant in this way. However, if you wish for a flair here to do this work for you, you will need to organize this with them yourselves.
For more general advice about doing research to inform a creative project, please check out our Monday Methods post on the subject.