The Lost Tomb of Alexander by Nicholas J. Saunders

[jan]

I found two copies of The Lost Tomb of Alexander. at Border's bookstore and began thumbing through the book to see if I should purchase it, order it, steal it, or what! So far I have read only a few chapters and found a choice word that shocked me no end!

Is there information on this messageboard yet about this book? I appreciated the fact that he mentioned Andrew Chugg, and even included a photo of himself on the jacket.

His loyalty is commendable!

[marcus]

I found two copies of The Lost Tomb of Alexander. at Border's bookstore and began thumbing through the book to see if I should purchase it, order it, steal it, or what! So far I have read only a few chapters and found a choice word that shocked me no end!

Is there information on this messageboard yet about this book? I appreciated the fact that he mentioned Andrew Chugg, and even included a photo of himself on the jacket.

His loyalty is commendable!

Eh?

Jan, how does the fact that an author has a photo on the jacket, or the fact that he credits another author whose written a book about the same subject, make him "loyal" to Pothos? He's probably never heard of Pothos.

And what was this choice word that shocked you?

ATB

[dean]

Hi Jan,

Please can you divulge the shocking word that you read.

Best regards,
Dean

[jan]

Amyntoros.

[jan]

No, I didn't mean to imply that he was loyal to Pothos although he does mention it as in longing or yearning, but in that he states that Alexander demands loyalty from his followers. That impressed me.

And I would be very surprised if he does not know about Pothos. org. But I don't know that for a fact.

In his timeline, he mentions Andrew Chugg as his last entry. I thought that pertinent.

His photo is important because at least we get an idea of his age.

Only through the dvd's which used some famous professors do we ever get any idea of who the educated and scholars really are, and I always appreciate knowing what someone looks like. He is young in appearance.

Age is important to me, because the influences vary from generation to generation, and I believe that knowing how old John O'Brien is matters as does how old Ian Worthington is.

Especially in a day when everyone is trying to stay as young and youthful looking as possible. That is why I liked Peter Green when I saw him on a dvd. I realized he had some years of experience on him, meaning that his reading material as a youth was different from that of the young students of today. It matters finally on who to believe and not to believe in terms of sincerity and accuracy. I like the 18th century writers a lot because they deflate the sensationalism more than today's scholars appear to do.

There is a really great attitude about Alexander in McCrindle and Weigall, both ancients, but at least respectful and enthusiastic.

The shock was finding that Hephaestion is Amyntoros. This was the first that I knew that as I had always wondered about Linda Ann's name. Now it reaches me and surprises me. Enough said. I understand a lot now.

Jan

[dean]

Jan!!!!
We were expecting something a little bit saucier!!!!!
Oh well, never mind.
Best regards,
Dean

[amyntoros]

Amyntoros.

Hmm, Jan - you do know that this means "son of Amyntor" and we think of it as Hephaistion's last name, don't you? And he - er - used it long before I did!

Best regards,

[marcus]

No, I didn't mean to imply that he was loyal to Pothos although he does mention it as in longing or yearning, but in that he states that Alexander demands loyalty from his followers. That impressed me.

Fair enough, but that ain't what you said.

His photo is important because at least we get an idea of his age.
...
Age is important to me, because the influences vary from generation to generation, and I believe that knowing how old John O'Brien is matters as does how old Ian Worthington is.

OK. Well, I suppose if it's important to you ... although a scholar being older doesn't necessarily make him or her more knowledgeable, or more sincere, or even more 'correct'. Still, I can't tell you what to think.

And I would be very surprised if he does not know about Pothos. org. But I don't know that for a fact.

I don't know who this guy is, but I don't see any reason to believe that he knows, or cares two hoots, about Pothos. Still, that's not really worth arguing over.

In his timeline, he mentions Andrew Chugg as his last entry. I thought that pertinent.

Quite what is pertinant about that I don't know, but I'm sure Andrew will be pleased.

Sorry, Jan, I don't mean to get at you, but you have to admit that your original post in this thread didn't really make much sense. I must be in a hyper-critical mood this weekend. Apologies.

ATB

[jan]

Well, I burst out laughing when I read Hephaestion Amyntoros. And NO, I did not know that meaning of Amyntoros until now.

I like this book for many reasons. The author does possess good credentials, is associated I believe with the University of Cambridge, is another of the British group who seem to be attracted to the study of Alexander, and has studied and taught extensively. He reminds me a bit of Christopher HItchens in his photo.

I do believe that he is the first author to openly criticize Hephaestion and describe Hephaestion's personality and character traits so that intrigued me a lot. Plus, he gives a wonderful story about the case of the missing tomb, and includes pertinent facts about some of the detailed carvings that demonstrate the extent to which artists and scuptors would go to honor Alexander.

As I just watched a rerun of the debacle film that Oliver Stone made, I found it even more insulting and distasteful than my previous views of it when I was a bit in the "love smitten" stage of Alexander. So I am impressed with Saunder's ability to show respect and wonder and admiration for Alexander when he discusses the extent to which artist's would go in their efforts to create a great work in honor of him. I have decided that Stone must have decided to parody or make a comic spoof of Alexander in his effort to destroy him.

Incidentally, I don't believe that Saunders likes Hephaestion so well as he calls him vain and spiteful and gives illustrations to prove his case. That caught my fancy as well.

Perhaps he is right, huh?

Jan

[marcus]

Incidentally, I don't believe that Saunders likes Hephaestion so well as he calls him vain and spiteful and gives illustrations to prove his case. That caught my fancy as well.

Well, I'd be interested to read what he says about Hephaestion. He's not quite the first (depending on when the book was published), as Heckel at least has been anti-Heph for some time; but if it's a more 'mainstream' book than Heckel's "Marshals" then he might be the first to criticise Hephaestion in a mainstream work.

I'm not going to get into any long discussions of Hephaestion's character. My views are, I believe, fairly well known on this forum, but some people tend to think, when I say that Hephaestion was a nasty piece of work, either that I'm being homphobic (which is a non-sequitur and untrue), or that I think that, by comparison, Alexander's other companions were little angels (which is also a non-sequitur and untrue).

So, if this turns into a thread about Hephaestion, I won't be getting involved!

ATB

[dean]

I'm not going to get into any long discussions of Hephaestion's character. My views are, I believe, fairly well known on this forum, but some people tend to think, when I say that Hephaestion was a nasty piece of work,

Hello Marcus,

I would be interested to hear why you think so. I have not particulary thought much about Hephaestion's character either way- the general picture is that of a "faithful dog" but he apart from his torturing Philotas, I can't remember any other anecdote which would make you think so.

Best wishes,
Dean

[amyntoros]

So, if this turns into a thread about Hephaestion, I won't be getting involved!

IGÇÖm not trying to encourage a debate on Hephaistion GÇô just wanted to say that Saunders isnGÇÖt the first mainstream writer to openly criticize him. Paul Cartledge refers to him at one point as a dumb brute, and elsewhere calls him a rather colorless individual who was (depending on oneGÇÖs view) either a mere cipher or a rather sinister henchman. IGÇÖm surprised you donGÇÖt remember.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

He's not quite the first (depending on when the book was published), as Heckel at least has been anti-Heph for some time; but if it's a more 'mainstream' book than Heckel's "Marshals" then he might be the first to criticise Hephaestion in a mainstream work.

I actually find little to disagree with in Heckel's portrait of Hephaestion. As readers will know, I purchased GÇô at some bloody expense GÇô "Marshalls" a little time back and was intrigued to find much that agreed with my preconceptions (of the marshals - particularly Antigonus and Antipater).

As an aside Marcus, what do you consider "mainstream" on either Heph or the others? Or, better put, you seem to consider Heckel outside mainstream GÇô why? Not being picky, just a genuine question.

Paul Cartledge refers to him at one point as a dumb brute, and elsewhere calls him a rather colorless individual who was (depending on oneGÇÖs view) either a mere cipher or a rather sinister henchman.

Yes he does. I have something of a fondness for Cartledge's book and work in general. As I've observed before, his spiritual home remains Laconia but, he is a good read always.

I think, as I've stated before, that Hephaestion is, er, was the love of Alexander's life (outside of the next battle/frontier/nation to bend to obeisence and, possibly at the end, his cup or crater) GÇô the one "lifetime" relationship. As more than one scholar has observed, the relationship was certainly not limited to the plutonic. It's not at all hard to see Hephaestion GÇô with private access to the ultimate power GÇô having more influence with the king and guarding that rather jealously. He was not well liked and even actively hated by some.

Wonder what juicy tid-bits Eumenes may have kept on him?

[Efstathios]

The work of the older scholars is important.But the young researcher will have probably new leads and finds to study.And sometimes the work of the older scholars is anachronistic.Some other times not.Generally many people write about an era through the eyes of their era,and it's characteristics,and trends.

For example after the 50's-60's suddenly many writers started to become more spicy at their descriptions and their views on the sexuality of the ancients.Just because their own society started to come out of the conservative side.Of course in their effort to get rid of decades of conservative ideas they tore everything apart.Firstly it was Napoleon, then Socrates, then Philip the womanizer and Alexander e.t.c. Who's gonna be next?

The fact is that surely a more free and open minded ,and not bounded by conservatism, approach may get closer to the truth.But many times we have seen that historiography follows trends.They wrote history differently in the 10th century, and differently in the 18th century, and also now.And the trend will change again.As the 60's "free-sex" thing has started to fizzle out,so other things will too,and so will the way that we write history.

That's why the Roman period historians, and Roman historians generally had a different approach to history writing.Like Curtius.

[marcus]

Paul Cartledge refers to him at one point as a dumb brute, and elsewhere calls him a rather colorless individual who was (depending on oneGÇÖs view) either a mere cipher or a rather sinister henchman. IGÇÖm surprised you donGÇÖt remember.

Mea culpa! Yes, of course Cartledge has already made that judgement. I certainly don't subscribe to the "colourless" description ... or "dumb", in fact.

ATB