Cleophis, a Queen of India

[jan]

Who can tell me something about Cleophis, a queen of India whose son was defeated by Alexander, and so she was restored to her title as Queen by Alexander, and bore a son by him, according to Justin? This story fascinates me as I wonder what happened to her son named Alexander. Thanks. I read this in Curtius's translations, and it is tantalizing since he had only recently married Roxanne.

[ruthaki]

Isn't this just one of the 'romance' stories?
I know he was very friendly with a Queen who was, I believe, named Ada, but I think she was an elderly woman from Asia Minor. Can't remember the exact details of this one.

[marcus]

Hi Ruth,I'm very inclined to dismiss this one as a romance. Susan is probably much better placed to comment, as she's far more knowledgeable about the non-Greek traditions/sources.I've always wondered how old Ada actually was. You might well be right that she was 'elderly', and I've tended to think of her as middle aged... but I don't know whether her exact age in 334BC (when Alexander was in Caria) is known. I've got a book somewhere with lists of all the kings and queens of the world in history (from Sumer to the modern world) so I'll have to have a look there and see if it's mentioned.All the bestMarcus

[susan]

Yes, this is Romance. Curtius does seem to have difficulty in distinguishing what was true & what was romance; but it is probably fairly early, along similar lines to Thalestris, the Amazon queen.However, I think there's an outside chance that Alexander did form alliances with Persian & Indian princesses other than Roxane, as a means of cementing alliances. I know of another Indian tale where he married a king's daughter (Shahrul Baruyah, daughter of Raja Kida Hindi) after a successful invasion, and then went on to other conquests leaving her pregnant. While this is probably untrue, there may be an element of truth. After all, Philip II took wives at the end of campaigns.
RegardsSusan

[agesilaos]

Not from the Romance but Kleitarchos,a source used by Curtius, Trogus(Justin), and the author of the Metz epitome. It is significant that Curtius treats the story cautiously and odd that Kleitarchos seema
s to have omitted the massacre of the Massaga's mercenaries which Arrian associates with this campaign.

[amyntoros]

Cleophis does seem to have gained importance in the Romances though, which is understandable with her being the alleged mother of Alexander's child. It's interesting to see how the stories change. Even Cleophis' origins were altered when Handel wrote an opera in 1731 called Porus. In this story, she is the beloved of Porus, who does not reveal his identity when captured, and is jealous of Alexander's attentions to Cleophis. There are intrigues, mostly due to a treacherous general of Alexander's called Timagenes, but eventually Porus is reunited with Cleophis through the generosity of Alexander, who surrenders his own claims to her.Understanding how popular opera was during this period, it is easy to see how history becomes corrupted - many people believe what they see and hear, even if it is presented as fiction. When Stone's movie comes out, I'm quite sure that anyone who has never read a history of Alexander will be firmly convinced that Alexander died of poisoning. Relevant to this, though somewhat off-topic, I recently searched Discovery.com to see if the Discovery channel in the U.S. had scheduled the program on The Mysterious Death of Alexander. They haven't, but a seach brought up a link to their Animal Planet (a U.S. Discovery-owned channel) pages. There was this reference:"The Romans were also known for their use of dogs in war. The Molossus, or Molossian, originally from Greece, was the war dog of choice. These animals reportedly had great speed and strength and could dismember opponents. Alexander the Great owned a Molossian named Peritas, who, legend has it, single-handedly killed a lion and an elephant in fighting matches. Alexander would later die in war with his troops and team of Molossian fighting dogs."Now this is supposed to be an educational channel and website which is even used by children for their homework! So now Alexander died in battle? - the myths continue...Linda Ann

[marcus]

I had one a couple of days ago, too (although not quite so bad). It was a children's book about Ancient Greece, which on the whole was excellent.However, there was a short piece on the break up of Alexander's empire, and they 'interviewed' three of the 'suspects' in the murder of Roxane, Olympias, etc.Apart from the fact that the suspects were Ptolemy, Antigonos and Seleukos (who we *know* didn't kill Olympias et al), they also had Antigonos saying "anyway, I was only a child when it happened". Which I thought was a bit odd, as he was over 40 (at least) when he became satrap of Phrygia in 334/333BC!All the bestMarcus

[ruthaki]

And I don't believe a dog (Molossian or otherwise) could kill an elephant either.

[marcus]

Ha ha! Good point, Ruth!:-)Marcus

[amyntoros]

I did give the writer the benefit of the doubt on that one - he did say "legend has it". However, I was probably being generous. There is another page on the site that refers to Bucephalus and briefly gives the story of Alexander's taming of the horse. However, they have a most colorful description of Bucephalus' death with details that certainly amused me."In 326 BC, Alexander defeated the King of India at the bloody battle of Hydaspes, and Bucephalus GÇö who was now 30, wounded and gushing blood GÇö carried Alexander swiftly out of harm's way before collapsing and dying beside his master."I do wonder where supposedly educated people get their "facts" - and as this is a commercially-owned site, I presume the writer has been paid for these romanticized little gems of misinformation. :-)Linda Ann

[marcus]

Hmmm.Actually, having re-read your original post regarding the Elephant-killing dogs, I do remember reading something else that said that Alexander died in battle. In fact, if I recall correctly, it also said that he died in battle in Persia.I *think* that was put in one of the movie magazines, which did a very short piece on the Stone movie. Please note, however (especially the libel lawyers out there), that it was NOT saying that this is how Stone's movie will end - it was a 'historical background' piece written by the magazine. The fact that is was unhistorical is neither here nor there!All the bestMarcus

[S]

Greetings Jan,I would probably put this in the "Ancient National Enquirer"- or, "romance", even if from an earlier writer. It is significant that little or no mention of all these offspring is noted anywhere in history after Alexander's death, though several folktales bring up fictional offspring (along with elephant killing dogs, etc (smile). Even their deaths would have been important to note. Had there really been so many children, there would have been claimants for the next 20 years after Alexander's death, and today we would have numerous people putting forth claims to the ancestry- and so far, I know of only two families who have tried it on, and they have been, rightfully so, dismissed.As with any famous person, there will be many tales of adventures, affairs and offspring, most of which are untrue. Much has to do with the development of folklore, with cultural mythology development and with the grand old tradition of enhancement of a story to make the teller seem more knowledgeable than he or she really is, or have a better story than the next fellow. And of course, all tales grow in the telling.Regards,
Sikander

[jan]

Thanks to each of you for your comments. I agree that there should be claimants to the throne, so most likely this story is exaggerated. But nonetheless, interesting and intriguing.

[amyntoros]

Sikander, you set me to thinking: could Alexander have had other children without them being noted in history - the history being that of the Greek/Roman western tradition?We know he had one son, Herakles, when he died, and Roxane was pregnant. Why was Nearchus' suggestion that Herakles be given the crown met with such opposition and even a near riot by the Macedonians? Could it have been because Roxane was married to Alexander and her child would be legitimate, while the son of Barsine was considered to be a bastard? After all, Roxane's family wasn't significantly more important than Barsine's, and I doubt that the army cared about Persian heritage or politics anyway.Alexander was *outraged* at the banquet for Philip's wedding to Cleopatra when he thought that Attalus had implied he was a bastard. And after the mass marriages at Susa, why did Alexander encourage the men of the army to marry their Persian mistresses, even to the point of rewarding them with gold? Maybe it was to legitimize the offspring of the unions, rather than to appease Persian sensibilities concerning the women. After all, mistresses were quite common amongst the Macedonians and Alexander had never felt the need to marry Barsine, even after she bore him a son. At Susa, he was looking to the future of his empire, and the next generation of "Macedonians" was important to him. Perhaps he felt the need to make these children, or, more specifically, the sons, legitimate.Which brings me to the point: suppose Alexander had indeed had relations with a woman or women during his eastern campaigns. Susan had mentioned the possibility, though I think that any marriages would have been noted in the histories - his marriage to Roxane caused such a stir amongst his solidiers that I'm sure any further alliances of this type would have had similar impact. But what of a dalliance as suggested by Curtius - without giving particular credence to the story of Cleophis - or the taking of a mistress or concubine. If such a thing did happen, and the women were left behind in their own countries or returned to their families after Alexander's death, any sons they might have borne wouldn't have had any credence with the Macedonians as a claimant to the throne. Both the child's ethnicity and illegitimacy, it seems, would have eliminated the outside possibility of a Successor using him as a political tool. Plus, in these circumstances, there is the burden of proof of a child being truly A

[amyntoros]

Plus, in these circumstances, there is the burden of proof of a child being truly Alexander's offspring. So isn't it likely they would have remained amongst their own people, ignored by the western histories, and become part of the history/legends/folktales of their eastern culture?Yes, I know this is all supposition and conjecture, but can we rule it out with certainty? "Enquiring minds want to know....." :-)Best regards,
Linda Ann