Alexander the Impectious numbskull & First Class Idiot

[kennyxx]

Companions HiUpon revisiting the investigation to Alexanders death by the Scotland yard detective. Ive got to conclude Alexander not the Great but the most stupid imectious Conquerer out there.Am I to believe that Alexander became sick, And was so impatient to start his Arabian Conquests thgat he Gulped down over doses of Helibore to make himself sick and hasten recovery. And to continue this method of Cure for 12 Days till it killed him.The sources say nothing about trying to purge Alexanders fever in this way. Yet with fevers prior to this one potions were used. Even famously when Alexander recieved Letters to warn of poisons.Does anyone else believe that Alexander was so idiotic to accidently poison himself. If so then I guess ive overestimated Alexanders astuteness. It was Also claimed Alexanders drinking excesive. Alexanders drinking was never mentioned in the sources as out of the ordinary. Thgese experts say Alexanders liver etc were done in. Therefore lets assume the majority of Macedonian men must hace has Sclerosis of the liver.Im glad I revisited this progarame and if the guy was a top Scotland yard detective. Going on his theories and findings there must be a lot of villains that got away with his idiotic conclusions.He wasnt Poisoned because the warrior Macedonians would have used a dagger. Can any porthonians mention anyone that would dare. Even if assasination was tried and it would be risky. If Alexander survived the Knifer not like Pausanius would have been tortured and the plotters would have been exposed I am positive. Tough Macedonians or not its a much safer bet to poison.So was Alexander the total numb skull this programe portrayed?Kenny

[marcus]

Well, Kenny, I'd say that you've basically summed up the many things that were wrong with that inane programme. I saw it when it was first broadcast, and nearly threw the TV out of the window with frustration at the, quite frankly, rubbish detection methods, and lack of historical framework displayed. It was a good idea, thrown away by sloppy execution.Having said that, I'd love to see all the work that went on behind the scenes that *wasn't* shown on the programme. We have to bear in mind that they are making a piece of entertainment, and there might actually have been some historically worthwhile stuff going on that they left out because it didn't make good TV. The 'investigation' might have been better than we think.It does make you wonder how many of the people languishing in British jails have been wrongly convicted, doesn't it? :-)ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Well, Kenny, I'd say that you've basically summed up the many things that were wrong with that inane programme. I saw it when it was first broadcast, and nearly threw the TV out of the window with frustration at the, quite frankly, rubbish detection methods, and lack of historical framework displayed. It was a good idea, thrown away by sloppy execution.Having said that, I'd love to see all the work that went on behind the scenes that *wasn't* shown on the programme. We have to bear in mind that they are making a piece of entertainment, and there might actually have been some historically worthwhile stuff going on that they left out because it didn't make good TV. The 'investigation' might have been better than we think.It does make you wonder how many of the people languishing in British jails have been wrongly convicted, doesn't it? :-)ATBMarcus

[kennyxx]

Marcus Spot on. I take what you say about entertainment. There was a programe onyesterday in a series of Musrder mysteries about Napoleons death and there case and evidence was much better put foreward. The Interesting part to Napoleons proven Poisoning was the traces found in his hair. There conclusion was that Napoleon had been administered poison at least 40 times and his illness was variable and up and down.Thene there was an Italian investigator looking into Caesars assasination very good with very good evidence. The guys conclusion was Caeasar knew all about the assasination and deliberatly went there to die. Apparaently Caesar ignored a not passed to him prior to the Assasination and even dismissed his body guard. Apparaently Caesar was getting ill and really wanted to go out in a way to immoratalise himself and vilify his enemies in the senate. It mkes a lot of sense.The people that dismiss the poison theory have mostly argued that were he poisoned he wouldnt have lingered on. My argument would be the original dose at the banquet then steadily administer till the job was done. Hepheastion was very similar. He fell ill seemed to recover then violent relapse then bingo dead.Indeed your argument about people loitering behind bars going on the Scotland yard man. his detective work seems very far fetched.Marcus in your opinion had the dagger been the only way to assasinate Alexander. Can you tell me one Macedonian that would have dared to try it or risking a conspiracy to do it. Because I cant. If I was gonna kill Alexander it would be a buit to risky to set up an assasin with a dager. With a risk the killer might fail and be questioned. Pausanius could have been questioned about Philip but quite luckily for whoever he was killed on the spot.Kenny

[kennyxx]

Marcus Spot on. I take what you say about entertainment. There was a programe onyesterday in a series of Musrder mysteries about Napoleons death and there case and evidence was much better put foreward. The Interesting part to Napoleons proven Poisoning was the traces found in his hair. There conclusion was that Napoleon had been administered poison at least 40 times and his illness was variable and up and down.Thene there was an Italian investigator looking into Caesars assasination very good with very good evidence. The guys conclusion was Caeasar knew all about the assasination and deliberatly went there to die. Apparaently Caesar ignored a not passed to him prior to the Assasination and even dismissed his body guard. Apparaently Caesar was getting ill and really wanted to go out in a way to immoratalise himself and vilify his enemies in the senate. It mkes a lot of sense.The people that dismiss the poison theory have mostly argued that were he poisoned he wouldnt have lingered on. My argument would be the original dose at the banquet then steadily administer till the job was done. Hepheastion was very similar. He fell ill seemed to recover then violent relapse then bingo dead.Indeed your argument about people loitering behind bars going on the Scotland yard man. his detective work seems very far fetched.Marcus in your opinion had the dagger been the only way to assasinate Alexander. Can you tell me one Macedonian that would have dared to try it or risking a conspiracy to do it. Because I cant. If I was gonna kill Alexander it would be a buit to risky to set up an assasin with a dager. With a risk the killer might fail and be questioned. Pausanius could have been questioned about Philip but quite luckily for whoever he was killed on the spot.Kenny

[Paralus]

G'day Kenny.I don't think Alexander poisoned himself and I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that he was poisoned. That doesn't mean he wasn't or that there weren't those who would have loved to have it happen: plainly there were. Antipater among them (I'll get 'round to that subject one day when I've got it "sorted").His drinking though, I think, is an accepted fact. Arrian and Plutarch (to a larger degree) make the point by being so defensive about their hero. The drinking among Macedonian court nobles is a well attested fact (you know, the socio/political bonding thing and all) and was a constant source of epithet for the more "civilised" Greeks who cut their wine with water. Plutarch (Alex. 23. 1) says this:"To the use of wine also he was less addicted than was generally believed. The belief arose from the time which he would spend over each cup, talking than in drinking, always holding some long discourse, and this too when he had abundant leisure."All of which sounds a trifle too cute by far. Especially when (at 23. 7-9) he goes on to give the lie to the above:"And although in other ways he was of all princes most agreeable in his intercourse, and endowed with every grace, at this time his boastfulness would make him unpleasant and very like a common soldier. Not only was he himself carried away into blustering, but he suffered himself to be ridden by his flatterers. There were a great annoyance to the finer spirits in the company, who desired neither to vie with the flatterers, nor yet to fall behind them in praising Alexander. The one course they thought disgraceful, the other had its perils. After the drinking was over, he would take a bath and sleep, frequently until midday;and sometimes he would actually spend the entire day in sleep."

Love the sleep GÇô "frequently untill midday" GÇô as well as the boasting and difficulty others had in getting a word in edgeways! I think we can all recognise where that description takes us. Reminiscent of Philip's reported dance among the Greek dead at Chaeronea.Later, of course, both Plutarch and Arrian invoke the fact that he was "in his cups" as the excuse for the murder of Clietus. Neither mentions that this was an abnormal thing (for the king to as full as a Catholic school), indeed Plutarch describes the incident occasioning the murder as happening "after boisterous drinking was under way" (Alex. 50.7).Strike me pink! Gotta learn to write less. Cont...

[Paralus]

G'day Kenny.I don't think Alexander poisoned himself and I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that he was poisoned. That doesn't mean he wasn't or that there weren't those who would have loved to have it happen: plainly there were. Antipater among them (I'll get 'round to that subject one day when I've got it "sorted").His drinking though, I think, is an accepted fact. Arrian and Plutarch (to a larger degree) make the point by being so defensive about their hero. The drinking among Macedonian court nobles is a well attested fact (you know, the socio/political bonding thing and all) and was a constant source of epithet for the more "civilised" Greeks who cut their wine with water. Plutarch (Alex. 23. 1) says this:"To the use of wine also he was less addicted than was generally believed. The belief arose from the time which he would spend over each cup, talking than in drinking, always holding some long discourse, and this too when he had abundant leisure."All of which sounds a trifle too cute by far. Especially when (at 23. 7-9) he goes on to give the lie to the above:"And although in other ways he was of all princes most agreeable in his intercourse, and endowed with every grace, at this time his boastfulness would make him unpleasant and very like a common soldier. Not only was he himself carried away into blustering, but he suffered himself to be ridden by his flatterers. There were a great annoyance to the finer spirits in the company, who desired neither to vie with the flatterers, nor yet to fall behind them in praising Alexander. The one course they thought disgraceful, the other had its perils. After the drinking was over, he would take a bath and sleep, frequently until midday;and sometimes he would actually spend the entire day in sleep."

Love the sleep GÇô "frequently untill midday" GÇô as well as the boasting and difficulty others had in getting a word in edgeways! I think we can all recognise where that description takes us. Reminiscent of Philip's reported dance among the Greek dead at Chaeronea.Later, of course, both Plutarch and Arrian invoke the fact that he was "in his cups" as the excuse for the murder of Clietus. Neither mentions that this was an abnormal thing (for the king to as full as a Catholic school), indeed Plutarch describes the incident occasioning the murder as happening "after boisterous drinking was under way" (Alex. 50.7).Strike me pink! Gotta learn to write less. Cont...

[Paralus]

I don't think his drinking was too far out of the ordinary for Macedonian nobility in the beginning. But even in Babylon he resorted to drinking as cure for his fever (Alex 75. 3-6):"GǪhe laid aside his grief and betook himself once more to sacrifices and drinking-bouts. He gave a splendid entertainment to Nearchus, and then, although he had taken his customary bath before going to bed, at the request of Medius he went to hold high revel with him; and here, after drinking all the next day, he began to have a feverGǪ. But Aristobulus says that he had a raging fever, and that when he got very thirsty he drank wine, whereupon he became delirious, and died on the thirtieth day of the month Daesius."Certainly by the end he had a recognisable problem though I would have thought.Paralus.

[Paralus]

I don't think his drinking was too far out of the ordinary for Macedonian nobility in the beginning. But even in Babylon he resorted to drinking as cure for his fever (Alex 75. 3-6):"GǪhe laid aside his grief and betook himself once more to sacrifices and drinking-bouts. He gave a splendid entertainment to Nearchus, and then, although he had taken his customary bath before going to bed, at the request of Medius he went to hold high revel with him; and here, after drinking all the next day, he began to have a feverGǪ. But Aristobulus says that he had a raging fever, and that when he got very thirsty he drank wine, whereupon he became delirious, and died on the thirtieth day of the month Daesius."Certainly by the end he had a recognisable problem though I would have thought.Paralus.

[Gary]

"Certainly by the end he had a recognisable problem though I would have thought."I often wonder to what extent his drinking was affected by the pain and discomfort of old injuries.

[Gary]

"Certainly by the end he had a recognisable problem though I would have thought."I often wonder to what extent his drinking was affected by the pain and discomfort of old injuries.

[Paralus]

G'day GaryA good question. As I wrote, I don't necessarily think Alexander was a lifelong lush. The feasting and drinking GÇô especially the drinking of neat wine GÇô was a Macedonian court "thing". Alexander was no different to others.The sources GÇô in spite of themselves GÇô do paint a picture of increasing addiction or, in the least, reliance on alcohol as time went by. That this may be a reaction to the constant campaigning and wounds is quite likely. That it fuelled a feedback loop of paranoia, loneliness and increased reliance on alcohol leading to more of the same is, I think, a fact borne out by the descriptions of his final years (c 328 on as a rough mark).The near fatal wound (among the many others) must have been a right pain in the arse. The stress of the constant campaigning and court politics would most certainly have driven me to drink. Among the "riches" and luxuries of the world he had conquered were also the wines of the richest empire on earth. One can imagine it must have resembled and adult theme park: "Liquorland" (one of those lost worlds of Disney perhaps). I too would have faltered!Paralus.

[Paralus]

G'day GaryA good question. As I wrote, I don't necessarily think Alexander was a lifelong lush. The feasting and drinking GÇô especially the drinking of neat wine GÇô was a Macedonian court "thing". Alexander was no different to others.The sources GÇô in spite of themselves GÇô do paint a picture of increasing addiction or, in the least, reliance on alcohol as time went by. That this may be a reaction to the constant campaigning and wounds is quite likely. That it fuelled a feedback loop of paranoia, loneliness and increased reliance on alcohol leading to more of the same is, I think, a fact borne out by the descriptions of his final years (c 328 on as a rough mark).The near fatal wound (among the many others) must have been a right pain in the arse. The stress of the constant campaigning and court politics would most certainly have driven me to drink. Among the "riches" and luxuries of the world he had conquered were also the wines of the richest empire on earth. One can imagine it must have resembled and adult theme park: "Liquorland" (one of those lost worlds of Disney perhaps). I too would have faltered!Paralus.

[Nicator]

Hello Paralus,
It's escaped the typical rhetoric on this issue, and I thought I'd mention it here. Certainly there were servers that kept Alexander's cup full. His cup above all others must have garnered the most attention from over attentive servers. What was he to do...kill the party by refusing a drink? The peer pressure overwhelmed him, I'm sure of it. As evidenced by the Thessalian friend that called him back to the party when he started to feel the malaise that killed him. later Nicator

[Nicator]

Hello Paralus,
It's escaped the typical rhetoric on this issue, and I thought I'd mention it here. Certainly there were servers that kept Alexander's cup full. His cup above all others must have garnered the most attention from over attentive servers. What was he to do...kill the party by refusing a drink? The peer pressure overwhelmed him, I'm sure of it. As evidenced by the Thessalian friend that called him back to the party when he started to feel the malaise that killed him. later Nicator