"Wonders of the Ancient World"... Ignored?

[rocktupac]

As interested as Alexander was in nearly all things, big or small, it surprises me that there is little, if nothing, mentioned in the extant sources about the five existing "Wonders of the Ancient World". It is possible that the writers (Plutarch, Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus) simply left out any mention of them due to personal preference or reasons they may have had, but this seems highly unlikely. Alexander certainly had to be aware of their existance, as he would have (probably) come in contact, or near contact, with several of them.

1. the Temple of Zeus, which one would think Alexander would definitely have ventured to see or sacrifice at, is left out
2. the Temple of Artemis is mentioned, but only briefly and not as a visited destination, but understandably so
3. the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus is completely ignored even though Alexander was well within range of a visit; he was also 'adopted' into the family which had it constructed
4. nothing is mentioned about a trip to the pyramids of Giza, something which the locals would surely have mentioned to their new pharaoh
5. and little is mentioned about the Hanging Gardens of Babylon as a whole, let alone Alexander paying any close attention to them

Why are they left out?

[amyntoros]

I wrote a piece on Alexander and the Seven Wonders for the site back in 2004. Click on the Alexander the Great link on the main page, then Art and Legends, then Seven Wonders.

I've barely looked at it since I first wrote it and am somewhat embarrassed having read it today. Can't quite believe I wrote "There is no question" (that Alexander visited the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus). Truly I think he must have done so - and that's probably what I should have said instead!

Best regards,

[jan]

When you read stories about New York City, how many times do the authors mention either the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building? They are taken for granted, thus, deserve no mention at all. Everyone there knows all about them. Think about it. Or for that matter, in any western movie that is made in Arizona, there is never a mention of the Grand Canyon either.

[marcus]

When you read stories about New York City, how many times do the authors mention either the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building? They are taken for granted, thus, deserve no mention at all. Everyone there knows all about them. Think about it. Or for that matter, in any western movie that is made in Arizona, there is never a mention of the Grand Canyon either.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head, Jan. The point is, everyone knew the Temple of Zeus was in Olympia, so it would excite no comment that Alexander went to it, or saw it, or whatever. Similarly the others. Perhaps less so the Pyramid or the Hanging Gardens, but those who wrote about Alexander were writing about Alexander's campaigns, not creating a travel guide.

No doubt the sights were mentioned in those books written by the bematists, or others who were with the army; but as they haven't survived we'll never know.

ATB

[rocktupac]

When you read stories about New York City, how many times do the authors mention either the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building? They are taken for granted, thus, deserve no mention at all. Everyone there knows all about them. Think about it. Or for that matter, in any western movie that is made in Arizona, there is never a mention of the Grand Canyon either.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head, Jan. The point is, everyone knew the Temple of Zeus was in Olympia, so it would excite no comment that Alexander went to it, or saw it, or whatever. Similarly the others. Perhaps less so the Pyramid or the Hanging Gardens, but those who wrote about Alexander were writing about Alexander's campaigns, not creating a travel guide.

No doubt the sights were mentioned in those books written by the bematists, or others who were with the army; but as they haven't survived we'll never know.

ATB

I couldn't respectfully disagree with you more. These aren't 'stories' about Alexander, they're his history, albeit not in the same way we think of history today. Sure people may have known about the Temple of Zeus in Olympia, but isn't Alexander's "story", as you put it, more exciting or interesting to all if it is included? Surely not everybody would have actually seen the magnificent statue, so I still believe it would have been exciting to read about itl, especially when it would have included Alexander! It is a part of his life, especially if his generals were to believe, or wish others to believe, that Zeus was in fact his father. I don't think it is a legitimate excuse or argument for the sites not to be included.

You would think, if Alexander had visited these sites, the Mausoleum would have been included, which was relatively new at the time of Alexander's capture of it. And certainly "everyone" (as Marcus assumed of the temple of Zeus) wouldn't have known about the Mausoleum, or even the pyramids of Giza or Hanging Gardens. And it is naive to think that Alexander seeing these wonders "would excite no comment" (again, Marcus's words) from the reader, even if they were Greek, Macedonian, or Roman! After all the Apis bull of Memphis is mentioned, and with some detail when compared with the other descriptions of his Egyptian visit (not included Siwah). This out of all things, one would guess, would fail to "excite no comment" from the Greek reader.

Imagine for a moment the fantastic (and most likely fabricated) stories Plutarch could have written about the statue of Zeus "speaking" to Alexander upon his visit, thus signifying his divine parentage. Or the tale of Alexander admiring the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus so much that he vows to build a monument in the future to surpass its greatness; this would later prove to be Hephaistion's pyre. One can almost see this imaginary and foretelling writing in the pages of Plutarch!

It is true that we will never know if the contemporaries of Alexander wrote about the ancient wonders, but this doesn't mean that they weren't written about originally, or that we can assume that since they were well-known that this is why they weren't included. Any learned Greek who loved his Herodotus and Thucydides would have loved his histories of Alexander, especially if they described much more of the foreign lands they so wished to know more about. But what I'm more interested in is, due to the fact these sites are not written about, why Alexander didn't visit them.

Jan, think about our modern vacations: when traveling to a foreign country or different state, what does the typical tourist visit? The most famous landmarks or buildings in the area, no matter how well-known they may be to others. They write about them; tell stories about them; take pictures of them, regardless of how much is known about them by others or the world. Your reasoning does not apply. Of course Alexander is no mere 'typical tourist'. But his travels and all the things he did on his travels would, and one can only guess, have excited the Greek, Macedonian or Roman reader--regardless of familiarity.

[athenas owl]

Rocktupac...remember that when ATG was besieging Harlicarnassus, the monument was barely 20 years old...it hadn't yet been declared a "wonder of the world". He certainly couldn't have missed it, being on a hill in the middle of the city.

As for the Temple of Zeus...as we don't have very much about ATG's youth before his expidition/invasion.. he may well very have. Some stuff was written that he had attended the Olympics when he was 15/16. Who knows what history is lost.

There's a lot of missing information about his time in Egypt. Was he crowned Pharoh or not..what did he do in Memphis? I'd love to have that written down somewhere. I can imagine ATG standing below the Great Pyramid and nodding to himself, "I'm going to build one of these myself someday"...(and his "final instructions" suppossedly did include builiding a pyramid for Phillip II if memory serves. So to him, who did think big, they may have been merely impressive and something to be topped.

As for the hanging gardens..I don't know. But keep in mind that what later writers considered "the Seven Wonders" was indeed later...perhaps there were so many wonders that ATG and his people saw, that the later list didn't begin to cover them.

Other lists included the Ishtar Gate and the Walls of Babylon.

[Semiramis]

I am reluctant to compare Alexander to any tourist as his travels took place while he was attacking these countries, perhaps differentiating his priorities somewhat. However, he did find time to visit the oracle at Siwa, Cyrus' tomb, graves at Troy and the Gordian Knot (the last two I am doubtful of). He visited Nysa, that city Dionysis founded in India (ehem..) and got quite excited by the presence of ivy. All this followed by a good old fashioned Bacchanalia. Then there was the visit to the birthplace of Prometheus. Maybe he had his own list of wonders.

Regarding becoming a pharaoh of Egypt, there are carvings of hieroglyphics showing his Pharaonic name. If one considers these Egyptian cartouches a credible source, then there is no doubt that Alexander was crowned Pharaoh. Theseus is the man to ask about these things. But for starters I'll link to one of his threads that has a picture of a carving of Alexander's cartouche in Luxor.

http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... ight=egypt

Here is a list of all the cartouches of all the Pharaohs including Alexander III, IV, Ptolemy etc. starting at 3050 BC (!).

http://ib205.tripod.com/kings.html

Last, but not least, this is a website that claims to let you create your own cartouche.

http://www.virtual-egypt.com/newhtml/glyph/glyph.html

[amyntoros]

I am reluctant to compare Alexander to any tourist as his travels took place while he was attacking these countries, perhaps differentiating his priorities somewhat. However, he did find time to visit the oracle at Siwa, Cyrus' tomb, graves at Troy and the Gordian Knot (the last two I am doubtful of). He visited Nysa, that city Dionysis founded in India (ehem..) and got quite excited by the presence of ivy. All this followed by a good old fashioned Bacchanalia. Then there was the visit to the birthplace of Prometheus. Maybe he had his own list of wonders.

May ask what it is that you doubt about Alexander's visiting of the graves at Troy and the Gordian Knot? I.e., is it just specific details that you question or the visits in their entirety? I recall reading some interesting comments about Alexander at Troy (in a non-Alexander book) but I'm not sure whether they're relevant.

Best regards,

[marcus]

I couldn't respectfully disagree with you more. These aren't 'stories' about Alexander, they're his history, albeit not in the same way we think of history today. Sure people may have known about the Temple of Zeus in Olympia, but isn't Alexander's "story", as you put it, more exciting or interesting to all if it is included? Surely not everybody would have actually seen the magnificent statue, so I still believe it would have been exciting to read about itl, especially when it would have included Alexander! It is a part of his life, especially if his generals were to believe, or wish others to believe, that Zeus was in fact his father. I don't think it is a legitimate excuse or argument for the sites not to be included.

Well, you'll have to take it up with Arrian, Curtius, Diodorus, Justin, Plutarch, etc. etc. etc. then, because they didn't include them! Doesn't mean to say that Alexander didn't visit them, it just means that Alexander's historians didn't consider them necessary/worthy/interesting enough to mention.

ATB

[amyntoros]

I couldn't respectfully disagree with you more. These aren't 'stories' about Alexander, they're his history, albeit not in the same way we think of history today. Sure people may have known about the Temple of Zeus in Olympia, but isn't Alexander's "story", as you put it, more exciting or interesting to all if it is included? Surely not everybody would have actually seen the magnificent statue, so I still believe it would have been exciting to read about itl, especially when it would have included Alexander! It is a part of his life, especially if his generals were to believe, or wish others to believe, that Zeus was in fact his father. I don't think it is a legitimate excuse or argument for the sites not to be included.

I rather suspect that there may well be a legitimate excuse for the historians ignoring a probable visit to the Zeus statue at Olympia, Giza, and the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. Take, just as an example, the "sights" which Semiramis mentioned - Siwa, Cyrus' tomb, the graves at Troy, Gordium and the Knot, and Nysa in India. In each instance there is both a religious element and a strong political statement, religion and politics being almost inseparable during this period and not just in the case of Alexander. The purpose of his visit to Siwah was to consult the infallible oracle and here begins the self-promotion regarding his parentage. Events at Cyrus' tomb demonstrate to the Persians Alexander's respect and regard for a past ruler; the cutting (or untying) of the knot at Gordium is self explanatory; the naming of "Nysa" in India and the events which took place there demonstrate that Alexander (and his army) had not only travelled farther than Hercules, but had ventured as far as the god Dionysos - all this to Macedonian and Greek eyes of course. And, in the eyes of one historian, the visit to Troy was much more than establishing for public record his affiliation with Achilles. At this point I will quote from the passage I had mentioned in my response to Semiramis. (Here the offerings at the tomb of Achilles are almost a footnote.) It's from Francios Hartog's Memories of Odysseus (pages 156-157).

Unlike Plutarch, Arrian, who wrote a history of Alexander, borrowing the title Anabasis from Xenophon, did not at all promote this theme of a fusion of cultures. He was a native of Nicomedia, and a member of the senatorial order who served under both Trajan and Hadrian. So he tended to portray the work of civilization and conquest initiated by Philip of Macedon on the model of Roman domination: he presents the Macedonians as conquering masters. Like the Romans, having started out with very little, they become the masters of the world. He also stresses how very much Alexander's conquest constituted a recapitulation of the whole of past Greek history ever since Troy, and also marked a new beginning. Herodotus' Histories ends with the revenge of Protesilaus at Sestus: the execution of the Persian Artayctes on the very spot where Xerxes' bridge had ended was a long-delayed riposte to the death of Protesilaus on the shores of Troy. On his way to Asia, Alexander made sure he halted at Elacous, to offer a sacrifice at the tomb of Protesilaus. Arrian adds, "The intention of the sacrifice was that the setting foot on Asian soil might be more propitious to Alexander than to Protesilaus." This was all the more important given that it was said that Alexander too, like a latter-day Protesilaus, was the first to leap from his ship on to the soil of Asia. He was a pious Greek assuming his inheritance.

But at the very same time he also repeated a number of Xerxes' gestures: the very same, but without the hubris and giving them a different meaning, the right meaning. It was as if he believed that repeating them but performing them as they should be performed would open up the path to victory. When Xerxes crossed the Hellespont, he poured libations from a golden cup that he then threw into the sea. When Alexander was half-way across the straits, he offered up a sacrifice and made a libation, likewise using a golden cup that he then threw into the sea. Xerxes had insisted on seeing Priam's Pergamum, where he had sacrificed a thousand oxen to Athena Ilias. Alexander went up to Illium and likewise sacrificed to Athena Ilias, but also to Priam (to assuage his anger), and placed a wreath on the tomb of Achilles.

Above we see how Alexander's visit to Troy and his actions may well have been interpreted by his intended audience - the Macedonians and the Greeks - and it's not difficult to see why they were considered worthy of record by the historians of the time. In this light I can't see any importance being afforded to Alexander making offerings at the Temple of Zeus, if he indeed did visit Olympia. It's something that would have been expected of any wealthy Greek and doesn't afford much of an opportunity to make any strong political or individualist statement. It's the same with the Mausoleum and the pyramids of Giza. In the case of the latter, Alexander had already shown his respect for the Egyptian gods by his honoring of Apis. Any trip to the pyramids would have added little to this and perhaps even offered a distraction from the way Alexander wished to be perceived. After all, the pyramids are the tombs of deceased god-kings and Alexander had not yet established himself in such a role, at least in Greek eyes. More than that, the pyramids firmly demonstrate that the Egyptian culture (and religion) was much older than that of the Greeks - something that they knew of and discussed at various times - but probably not something which Alexander wished them to be reminded of at this point. Even though he frequently made reference to the past and/or past rulers as he campaigned throughout Asia, the focus was always intended to be firmly on Alexander.

Just some recent thoughts on this.

Best regards,

[Semiramis]

I am reluctant to compare Alexander to any tourist as his travels took place while he was attacking these countries, perhaps differentiating his priorities somewhat. However, he did find time to visit the oracle at Siwa, Cyrus' tomb, graves at Troy and the Gordian Knot (the last two I am doubtful of). He visited Nysa, that city Dionysis founded in India (ehem..) and got quite excited by the presence of ivy. All this followed by a good old fashioned Bacchanalia. Then there was the visit to the birthplace of Prometheus. Maybe he had his own list of wonders.

May ask what it is that you doubt about Alexander's visiting of the graves at Troy and the Gordian Knot? I.e., is it just specific details that you question or the visits in their entirety? I recall reading some interesting comments about Alexander at Troy (in a non-Alexander book) but I'm not sure whether they're relevant.

Best regards,

Hey Amyntoros,

As you've described so well in your previous post, they all serve the myth of Alexander. I'm just not sure all of them really happened in his life time. I agree with your point entirely that if a visit didn't serve to further royal propaganda, there is no need to conduct it or mention it.

I'm not certain on Troy and Gordian Knot because of what appears to be slight cynicism in part of Arrian. Lots of sentences start with "they say", or similar constructs, indicating that Arrian isn't sure this actually happened. I just wonder whether this is one of those examples of royal propaganda mixing with deliberate myth-making, later on with the Alexander legend, and creeping into history.

I'll quote a large section just to show that Arrian makes an attempt to distinguish facts from stories he's not sure of.

HAVING settled these affairs, he returned into Macedonia. He then offered to the Olympian Zeus the sacrifice which had been instituted by Archelaus, and had been customary up to that time; and he celebrated the public contest of the Olympic games at Aegae. It is said that he also held a public contest in honour of the Muses. At this time it was reported that the statue of Orpheus, son of Oeagrus the Thracian, which was in Pieris, sweated incessantly. Various were the explanations of this prodigy given by the soothsayers; but Aristander, a man of Telmissus, a soothsayer, bade Alexander take courage; for he said it was evident from this that there would be much labour for the epic and lyric poets, and for the writers of odes, to compose and sing about Alexander and his achievements.

At the beginning of the spring he marched towards the Hellespont, entrusting the affairs of Macedonia and Greece to Antipater. He led with him not much over 30,000 infantry together with light-armed troops and archers, and more than 5,000 cavalry. His march was past the lake Cercinitis, towards Amphipolis and the mouths of the river Strymon. Having crossed this river he passed by the Pangaean mountain, along the road leading to Abdera and Maronea, Grecian cities built on the coast. Thence he arrived at the river Hebrus, and easily crossed it. Thence he proceeded through Paetica to the river Melas, having crossed which he arrived at Sestus, in twenty days altogether from the time of his starting from home. When he came to Elaeus he offered sacrifice to Protesilaus upon the tomb of that hero, both for other reasons and because Protesilaus seemed to have been the first of the Greeks who took part with Agamemnon in the expedition to Ilium to disembark in Asia. The design of this sacrifice was that disembarking in Asia might be more fortunate to himself than that it had been to Protesilaus. He then committed to Parmenio the duty of conveying the cavalry and the greater part of the infantry across from Sestus to Abydus; and they crossed over in 160 triremes, besides many trading vessels. The prevailing account is that Alexander started from Elaeus and put into the Port of Achaeans, that with his own hand he steered the general's ship across, and that when he was about the middle of the channel of the Hellespont he sacrificed a bull to Poseidon and the Nereids, and poured forth a libation to them into the sea from a golden goblet. They say also that he was the first man to step out of the ship in full armour on the land of Asia, and that he erected altars to Zeus, the protector of people landing, to Athena, and to Heracles, at the place in Europe whence he started, and at the place in Asia where he disembarked. It is also said that he went up to Ilium and offered sacrifice to the Trojan Athena; that he set up his ow n panoply in the temple as a votive offering, and in exchange for it took away some of the consecrated arms which had been preserved from the time of the Trojan war. It is also said that the shield-bearing guards used to carry these arms in front of him into the battles. A report also prevails that he offered sacrifice to Priam upon the altar of Zeus the household god, deprecating the wrath of Priam against the progeny of Neoptolemus, from whom Alexander himself was descended.

WHEN he went up to Ilium, Menoetius the pilot crowned him with a golden crown; after him Chares the Athenian, coming from Sigeum, as well as certain others, both Greeks and natives, did the same. Alexander then encircled the tomb of Achilles with a garland; and it is said that Hephaestion decorated that of Patroclus in the same way. There is indeed a report that Alexander pronounced Achilles fortunate in getting Homer as the herald of his fame to posterity.

Take the Gordian knot story. Here, Arrian isn't sure about the details.

It is said by some that when Alexander could find out no way to loosen the cord and yet was unwilling to allow it to remain unloosened, lest this should exercise some disturbing influence upon the multitude, he struck it with his sword and cutting it through, said that it had been loosened. But Aristobulus says that he pulled out the pin of the wagon-pole, which was a wooden peg driven right through it, holding the cord together. Having done this, he drew out the yoke from the wagon-pole. How Alexander performed the feat in connection with this cord, I cannot affirm with confidence. At any rate both he and his troops departed from the wagon as if the oracular prediction concerning the loosening of the cord had been fulfilled. Moreover, that very night, the thunder and lightning were signs of its fulfilment; and for this reason Alexander offered sacrifice on the following day to the gods who had revealed the signs and the way to loosen the cord.

Plutarch also mentions conflicting stories.

Then he subdued the Pisidians who made head against him, and conquered the Phrygians, at whose chief city, Gordium, which is said to be the seat of the ancient Midas, he saw the famous chariot fastened with cords made of the rind of the cornel-tree, which whosoever should untie, the inhabitants had a tradition, that for him was reserved the empire of the world.

Most authors tell the story that Alexander finding himself unable to untie the knot, the ends of which were secretly twisted round and folded up within it, cut it asunder with his sword. But Aristobulus tells us it was easy for him to undo it, by only pulling the pin out of the pole, to which the yoke was tied, and afterwards drawing off the yoke itself from below.

From hence he advanced into Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, both which countries he soon reduced to obedience, and then hearing of the death of Memnon, the best commander Darius had upon the sea-coasts, who, if he had lived, might, it was supposed, have put many impediments and difficulties in the way of the progress of his arms, he was the rather encouraged to carry the war into the upper provinces of Asia.

With regards to Alexander not wanting to be reminded of the ancient roots of Egyptian culture, I'm not sure this was the case. The simple act of his claiming to be Pharaoh would have been reminder enough. Alexander never claimed his right of conquest due to the cultural superiority of the Greeks. His reasons evolved from revenge to justice to simply not recognizing him as the ruler. Learned Greeks were usually willing to accord Egypt it's place in history as a much more ancient civilization and a seat of learning. It's most likely, as you say, he was playing to an audience familiar with Greek religious myths, which is what he was drawing on in his own myth-making.

Sorry for the long post! Take care.

[amyntoros]

With regards to Alexander not wanting to be reminded of the ancient roots of Egyptian culture, I'm not sure this was the case. The simple act of his claiming to be Pharaoh would have been reminder enough. Alexander never claimed his right of conquest due to the cultural superiority of the Greeks. His reasons evolved from revenge to justice to simply not recognizing him as the ruler. Learned Greeks were usually willing to accord Egypt it's place in history as a much more ancient civilization and a seat of learning. It's most likely, as you say, he was playing to an audience familiar with Greek religious myths, which is what he was drawing on in his own myth-making.

Sorry for the long post! Take care.

There's absolutely no need to apologize for the length of a very interesting post, however I must in turn apologize for what will be a very brief response. Thanksgiving looms and I have more medical appointments between now and then (prep for eye surgery in December) so I'm being kept away from my computer far too much! I just wanted to add here that I never meant to imply that Alexander did not want to be reminded of the ancient roots of Egyptian culture, only that he would not have wanted this to be the focus for anyone hearing or reading about his campaign progress. The news of him becoming Pharaoh may well have caused Greek readers of Callisthenes (or whatever other reports were sent back to Greece) to give the history of Egypt some thought, but I believe a report of a trip to the pyramids would have focused most of the attention on that subject. In other words, it would have been more about Egypt and less about Alexander. And he would ot have wanted that. Or at least I don't think he would have.

Best regards,

[Semiramis]

^^^ True that. We all know who the center of attention was!

[jan]

Rocktupac, You may disagree respectfully or not, but in truth, the two most famous places in NYC are the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty. I have visited the city in the past several times, and to this day, have not yet visited either of the two most famous spots. Perhaps at a future day, I may, but my first priority was my personal reasons for being in the city and that did not include sightseeing either of those scenic features.

I have visited the Grand Canyon I admit. It is a natural wonder anyway.

The real point is that when writing a history of a famous person, one has only so much time, so much copy, so much space, and so many ideas to present. For a person who is Alexander, the least important thing to a historian or to Alexander himself would have been what future generations called the 7 wonders of the world. I believe of all them the Hanging Gardens of Babylon would have been probably taken for granted as it was supposedly the place where he had died, so some historians suggest. So again, had he gone to any, the historian may have simply said he went to the temple, to the gardens, to the lighthouse...and we know it was nonexistent then...but you get the general idea of what I mean.

I toured the smithsonian institute when in Washington, DC, as do most tourists, and so nobody would ever note it when when writing a report except to say perhaps that it was at the local museum that I saw the Hope Diamond on display.

[marcus]

Rocktupac, You may disagree respectfully or not, but in truth, the two most famous places in NYC are the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty. I have visited the city in the past several times, and to this day, have not yet visited either of the two most famous spots. Perhaps at a future day, I may, but my first priority was my personal reasons for being in the city and that did not include sightseeing either of those scenic features.

Good point, Jan. I've been to NYC twice, and have visited those two monuments a grand total of ... never!

On my first visit I *did* go to the World Trade Center, which was deemed to be more 'interesting'? than the Empire State ... because it was taller?

ATB