Cleophis, a Queen of India

[S]

Greetings Amyntoros!Good questions, all. Of course, nothing much is ever certain in history (including the Heracles story). I base my assessments on Alexander's nature, the nature of the world and societies they were in, the nature of the historical sources, etc. I suspect the legitimacy would have not been as important as "absolute proof" that ATG was the father (which is possibly why, if Heracles was real, the question may have been pertinent) for the Successors; people being prone to emotion rather than logic, a true child of ATG would have had a great deal of audience play for gaining position for a Successor acting as a regent or protector for the child.The situation at the dinner banquet was not just about Alexander being a "bastard" (born out of true wedlock) and also not being of Makedonian stock, but about his parenthood- if Philip was not his blood father, Alexander had no claim to the throne.Prostitutes and concubines (and even women victimized by the victorius army) has access to means of birth control- and having a child, even by a king, was less desireable for many women than some might think. Birth rates were relatively low among certain groups for good reason: another mouth to feed is an excessive burden, and time spent pregnant means lost income for a short while..Of course, there is always a possibility that a woman produced a child by ATG and "hid it away" or was simply forgotten in history, but I suspect this was unlikely, since, in the clash of kings, any and all claimants to the throne are usually routed out and killed- and human nature being what it is, *somebody* would have known and found it impossible *not* to 'brag" or gossip...and once the secret was out, the child would have been a pawn in the game.But good questions, and will provoke much thought!Regards,
Sikander

[ruthaki]

Even if there were other 'illegitimate' children I doubt they would have lasted long and for sure would never have been accepted. The Macedonians had a hard time accepting his 'legitimate' heir by Roxana because she was a foreign woman. There seems to be a fairly good record of Philip's children sired from his 'spear brides' and even at that how many of them didn't live long. I wonder too if the exposure of unwanted babies was as prevalent in Maceodonia as it was in Greece and especially Sparta.

[Wolfie]

Alexander's dog is a what? And where did they get this reference? I don't recall a whole lot of portraits of Peritas just lying around somewhere. Doubtful Alexander had portraits done of his dogs just for the hell of it. Then again...he was a bit attached to Bucephalus. LOL!Wolfie

[Wolfie]

This holds true for any of Alexander's officers. My interest is Hephaistion, who is woefully ignored in the histories and when he is represented, its altogether unfairly and not without bias of some kind. Stuffy Romans. LOL!In regards to a bastard in India, how would they lay their claim? Near as I can tell, India sort of just drifted off the empire once it was divided between the Successors, as no one had the manpower to keep it up and quiet. Or the inclination. India seemed to be Alexander's passion; the army went along with him, though not quietly. If Alexander had left sons or daughters, what chance would they have had of getting somewhere and proving their lineage? And would they have cared?Wolfie

[Wolfie]

Children exposure. That's actually a good point. I don't think I've ever caught in any of my readings on Macedon of the practice being prevalent that far north.Anyone know the answer to this question?Wolfie

[amyntoros]

Hello Sikander!I'm wondering if this hypothetical child was born in India, as Wolfie suggested, how much real importance would be placed upon the child by the Successors? If one of them tried to use such a child to gain position, would the Macedonian armies have actually rallied around? Or would they not have cared less about such a claimant, given their xenophobia and other issues? Barsine's son wasn't the least bit useful as a rallying point - quite the opposite, in fact. (You say "if he existed" regarding Herakles. I'd love to hear more on that subject.) I do understand how in history, all legitimate competition for the crown was eliminated as a threat when a king died, but I question whether such a child would ever have been perceived as a threat either - certainly not in Macedonia, and I doubt in any of the other kingdoms. The battles for power revolved completely around Alexander's companions. Roxane's son, if he had reached adulthood, was a very real threat to Cassander, but would even Cassander have cared less about an illegitimate son living beyond the empire, and whose parentage couldn't be verified anyway? Supposing such a child did reach adulthood? Who could imagine him raising an army and marching all the way across Asia - either defeating the other kingdoms or gaining acceptance with the armies there - and finally reaching Macedonia? We know it didn't happen, and I think even Cassander might have thought the idea beyond belief.I find it strange that, having considered this issue from a different viewpoint, I am arguing for the *possibility* of the existance of a such a child. I normally treat all romance aspects of the histories with extreme skepticism. This is very unusual for me :-)Linda Ann

[S]

Greetings Amyntoros,There are two considerations here:First, it is not a matter of the child rising up to claim its place, but of someone else *using* such a child to claim a place. To understand the unlikely prospect of any child surviving, one needs to understand the nature of power and the harsh reality of royalty- not just back then, but up into almost modern times.. as I said in another post, would-be kings have long arms and money even longer ones... Second, if a queen *had* had a child by Alexander, the whole point of *having* such a child would have been to "advertise" same (of course, such a myth of a child does not take into cultural attitudes, etc towards women, but it does exhibit some ethnocentricism on the part of the writer- the "exotic" lands of India, etc as well as the "surviving child" of a god/king- all familiar mythic story lines)I have posted more discussion on this at the yahoo site.
Regards,
Sikander

[susan]

A possible hypothesis is :
as he travelled farther east, Alexander was regularly offered chief's daughters in marriage in order to cement alliances. Darius made the offer to him, and indeed he married Darius & Artaxerxes' daughters in the end.Before that we hear of the Scythian chief's daughter, who was rejected; then he accepted the marriage to Roxane. Incidentally, although I haven't seen it, I believe that the Metz Epitome implies that several of his generals also married Bactrian girls - rather like a fore-runner of the Susa marriages. However, this marriage was unpopular with the army, and Alexander, when faced with the situation again in India, maybe compromised - there would be a short show ceremony, not recognised by the Macedonians as a marriage and certainly not considered worthy of producing an heir to the Macedonian royal house, but sufficient to bind the peace treaty with the local ruler. The 'wife' would stay with her father. Any child born of this short union would have no rights to the Macedonian throne, and probably paternity would not be provable anyway, as the mother wouldn't be part of Alexander's household, and he and his armies were long gone when the baby was born.What would Alexander gain from this ? an easy way to cement an alliance with a local ruler, allowing him to move onto the next conquest, without upsetting the Macedonians ; what would the father gain - an alliance with Alexander, the possibility of a grandchild who may be connected to the conqueror.This is in fact the marriage model suggested by the Malay annals, which start with Alexander defeating an Indian ruler Raja Kida Hindi. The Raja offers Alexander his daughter to cement the alliance - Alexander marries her and takes her to his next conquest (?? partly in the role of a hostage ??), and on his return to Persia leaves her with her father. She finds she is pregnant after Alexander has gone, and her son is raised to be the heir to the grandfather's throne. While this is a fictional story, I can believe that somthing of this sort could happen. After Callisthenes' death, the accounts from India seem a bit vague, especially on non-military details ; and if the major sources omit the death of Alexander's child by Roxane I can well imagine that they would overlook any short-term alliances like these - especially if they had no dynastic significance.
Susan

[S]

Greetings Susan,While it would be interesting to think that somewhere, in the masses, floats DNA of Alexander, I still feel these are folktales due to the nature of archetypal folk tales in general and due to the lack of any mention historically of a "survivor of Alexander". Though far from Macedon proper, the very nature of the mythology surrounding Alexander would have made having a child (and of course, it is *always* a son in these tales) of his of import- at least for a number of years after, since the myth continued to grow and people still used his "aura" to enhance their own.Alexander was always careful of his get- I do not see him abandoning his usual caution to suddenly start cementing kingdoms by impregnating hordes of "queens", "princesses" and "tribal chiefs daughters"
in far-flung lands... Though as Jan has said, it opens opportunities for lots of fiction!Regards,
Sikander