"When some of them, again trying to please Alexander, suggested without any justification that the achievements of Philip were neither great nor wonderful, Cleitus was no longer able to restrain himself, showing respect for what Philip had achieved, but belittling Alexander and all he had done; he was now very drunk and he reproached Alexander a great deal, because after all his life had been saved by Cleitus himself, during the cavalry battle at the Granicus against the Persians Alexander could no longer endure Cleitus' drunkenness and insolence, and leapt up in anger towards him some say that he grabbed a spear from one of his bodyguards and struck Cleitus with this and killed him, while others reported that he used a pike taken from one of the guards
" .
(Arrian, XII.14.2).
Although this quote supports the majority of historians and scholars depiction of the relationship that Philip II and Alexander III shared, the reliability of Arrian as a source has caused discussion among historians. Arrian is quick to praise Alexander, often claiming that his greatness is worthy of praise and glory, and should be known by future generations. Despite obvious bias, and the fact that his book (Anabasis of Alexander) was published 400 years after Alexander's death, this source is still recognised as one of the best sources on the campaigns of Alexander the Great and some fragments are useful in capturing his self-centred personality. While Arrian perhaps illustrates how Alexander controlled his men and their attempts to please him in return, he unintentionally reveals that Alexander is a controlling megalomaniac with no regards or respect for his closest and most loyal subjects. Although Alexander defined himself as anti- Philip, it is evident he would not be remembered today if not for his father. Pomeroy claims that Philip "did what the Persian Empire, the Athenian Empire, and the Peloponnesian League could not do at their zenith " as he tamed Greece (Pomeroy, 1999).