Since the formation of the modern Greek state, many have engaged with the life and actions of the young conqueror, whether they were official or amateur historians. Unfortunately, this bibliography is ignored abroad.

Now it is also ignored domestically by younger historians, and thus the Greek reading public continues to be fed with foreign "fabrications" about Alexander, written by historians who can no longer read ancient sources in the original, who are completely ignorant of the Greek bibliography, and indeed in a scandalous manner - due to a total or partial lack of knowledge of Greek. And so things that were written about Philip or Alexander a hundred years ago by Greek historians are considered "discoveries" when written by foreign historians. A characteristic example is Ian Worthington's book "Philip II of Macedonia" (Yale University Press, 2008 p. 303). This book, with the central "proposition" of Theopompus' phrase that Philip was the greatest king Europe had produced, presents views that have been written by dozens of Greek historians, prominent and obscure, but whose work has never been translated and published abroad. After all, we Greek historians know - at least the older ones - how to read the ancients directly from the original - and not from distorted translations -, we also know, due to our linguistic skills, how to refer to the most important foreign historians, contemporary and old, while these "great" ones - although they deal with issues of Greek history - provocatively and arrogantly ignore our work, and thus at best repeat what has been said - and is being said - by Greek historians and at worst fall into such historical errors that an old Greek high school graduate would be ashamed of. Recently, Stathis Apostolidis' critique in "Eleftherotypia" highlighted countless errors in a much-publicized foreign history about Alexander, which we, however, neither ignore nor disdain. Whatever valuable it contains, we use.

For this reason, in the present writing, the primary focus will be on the ancient authors, those who wrote anything about Alexander, not with simple references but with intact excerpts accompanied by faithful philological translations, to avoid misunderstandings. The second focus will be on Greek historians, and this not out of chauvinism, which is foreign to the character of the writer, but out of a sense of justice. They are the great ignored ones. And naturally, the third - but not the last - focus will be on foreign historians. The final say will be ours, who bear the responsibility for the present writing.