ATG on The History Channel

[marcus]

Fair point :-)I confess I don't remember that sort of Iliadic detail well enough, but I believe you. I have to say, however, that I still can't picture it ... but that's hardly an argument (unless you're Graham Phillips).I know there's an old NGL Hammond article about the king's paraphernalia (spelled correctly this time). I'll have to dig it out and see what he says.All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

I'm familiar with everything you've written about, with the exception of the sceptre in the tombs and related comments. Frank Holt in his book, Alexander the Great and the Elephant Medallions doesn't describe the item as a sceptre (to the best of my recollection) but it doesn't really matter. These are all artistic portrayals; and even if every single one you mentioned *is* Alexander with a sceptre, it still doesn't satisfy me regarding Borza's comments in the show.My concern is: Was the Macedonian army so familiar with the sight of Alexander in real life carrying a sceptre that it became representative of him after his death? And I just don't see it. Alexander is also frequently portrayed as wearing the lion's skin, but that isn't mentioned. I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but I'm having a great deal of difficulty swallowing Borza's theory - which, by the way, he didn't present as a "theory" but as a fact!

[jan]

Well, I was honored by History Channel's version of Alexander, as the cave at Mieza is a tribute to Aristotle. (I appreciated seeing how the crew placed an emphasis on showing the great outdoors from the interior of the cave.) And I liked all the burning lamps shown so much during the last part of the show, as it reminded me of when JoAnn Heath gave me such a lamp as a gift for having been advisor to the newspaper The Forum, and so I looked at it again today and remembered the good old days of 68/69 in California! Thanks to History Channel, I still love to teach! and to be reminded of how thoughtful GOOD students can be.

[xxx]

Alexander would wear the sacred clothes of the gods at dinner-parties, sometimes the purple cloak, the slippers and horns of Ammon, sometimes the dress of the goddess Artemis, which he would often wear even on his chariot... Sometimes, he would also dress as Hermes, especially at parties when he would wear the winged sandals and the broad hat and hold a caduceus in his hand: often he carried a lion-skin and a club, like Heracles.That a quick lionskin I can think of. Although this hostile pamphlet is also a misreading of ceremonial dress during feasts dedicated to the gods. Moderns misinterpret this as cross-dressing.What is your reasoning that there was no sceptre (I think you're confusing Borza with Bosworth (the latter was on the show).

[amyntoros]

When I said the lion's skin wasn't mentioned, I meant it wasn't included in the items that Curtius lists as having been used to represent Alexander after his death - even though he was frequently portrayed as wearing it in both artwork and on his coins. If anything other than Alexander's crown and armour were used to represent him, I would have thought the lion's skin more likely than a sceptre. However, I won't belabour the point until I've read the relevant article. Mmm, yeah, I did confuse Borza and Bosworth in my last post. Sorry 'bout that. That's what happens when I get up a five a.m. after only a few hours sleep! :-)Linda Ann

[xxx]

I'll dredge up some source material - I ran into one last night in my Faces of Power but it is anonymous from the 4th century AD and mentions Alexander and his sceptre and that it was from Persian custom, which is probably the reference Marcus refers too. However, since the Greek Kings in the Iliad had sceptres it would certainly not necessarily have been a Persian custom.

[Nicator]

Though I liked the fact that they brought in two of the foremost experts in the field, I was dissapointed that they didn't bring in an offsetting viewpoint. It is too bad NGL Hammond has passed away. He seems the only viable voice of reason that could have countermanded the overly negative, hypercritical, conspiracy oriented, viewpoints of these two men. I was also a bit dismayed by the tendancy to promote the image of Alexander as feminine and increasingly insane as he ran across the world. There was also an irritating insistance on pushing their distorted agenda as uncompromising fact.
I would have liked a more balanced viewpoint which portrayed Alexander as a man of his time. I've mentioned before that I think Bosworth to be a bit boring. This does not mean I think he is not excellent, but his book has some weaknesses and flaws. In some cases, it is still my go to source for the final word when I need a definitive opinion; particularly on the names and places of the genre, and the filler material between battles. I had to pick up my Hammond book and read a voice of reason after the show just to feel normal again...
Green, who is much older than I pictured him, is one of the best writers I've read (descriptively speaking). He has created a narrative that challenges me as a writer to do better, and many times I'm at a loss to do so. His book seems to improve as it goes along; possibly as his own mentality adjusted to the project. But it's still very negative and conspirational, with maybe a bit less objectivity than Bosworth.
Beyond that, the scenary and the narrator were quite enjoyable.
later Nicator

[xxx]

From Diodorus on his description of the funeral cart - one of the panel paintings has Alexander seated in his chariot holding a magnificent sceptre...BTW you can read Diodorus on the Perseus website on the internet.