Continue from "Justin's book"

[John]

Susa,Which argument? I just like to show off my guns: Justin, Diodorus, Arrian... I'll even bring out Curtius and Plutarch if pressed!John

[maciek]

Oh how nice to see You ladies and gentelman - joining here!
I didn't know it also but it makes clear why he was so deley (I would be so too ) So maybe his illnes was only a cover for his romance. Even if it was political marriage it proofs nothing more then they were very good friens. They even could have a pact to act together in the future but it also could be aimed another way then Alex's assasination.
Maciek

[maciek]

Hi Susa hi John!
It's not about the winning or loosing but about searching the truth or just revieving the arguments and who's opinion is closer.
Now back to subiect:
According to Plutarch (last 77th chapter) suspicions about poison appeared six years after AlexGÇÖs death. During this time commanders were fighting and they became worst enemy GÇô one against another. DonGÇÖt You think that AlexGÇÖs assassination would be a good point in such fight. In few first years one of most crucial points was who will command the special unit of GÇ£silver shieldsGÇ¥ which were the best unit GÇô veterans from Alexander army. They were very proud and remembered Alex very good so for them such argument (who poisoned Alex) would be most important but none raised it. Just before death Alex said nothing about possibly poison GÇô yes he could not know about it but after few days (his last) he could have such impression GÇô no source mention it. Plutarch said that he donGÇÖt believe this theory but what is interesting to me is that what we are doing here now is the same what ancient historians did in those times searching for the truth Plutarch wrote that they had similar discussions as ours GÇô itGÇÖs nice.
Curtius seams not sure and he only made a suggestion that it might be a assassination (book X, chapter IV,13) he showed that Antipater had a motive to do it and Alex died just after Antipater got an information about change in his position (in Macedonia). But Curtius but he also bases on rumours.

[John]

Maciek,You're referring to this from Plutarch:"...as for suspicions of poisoning, no one had any immediately, but five years afterwards..."I cannot agree with Plutarch here, because Demosthenes was trying to get the Athenian people to publicly thank Iolas for poisoning Alexander - and Demosthenes died only a year after Alexander.John

[maciek]

It's strange that in my copy it is six years - but it is only a detail. It seams all right good point what about the rest I spend half a night to write it! Why Plutarch forgot this one? maybe it was no so serious claims only words of man who was always against all what was macedonian and they didn't treat him as a real source. You remember his role when Thebes revolted how cleaver he tried to be with that fake soldier pritending to Alexander's soldier and who saw Alex's death and how suprized Thebians was seeing just few days after it Alexander in a flesh standing under their walls. But I agree that it proofs that some rumours about it was in greece then.Maciek

[John]

Plutarch's Greek says "six [hekto]," but they had a different way of counting, so the english gets translated as "five."What can you say about Demosthenes. He was so against Philip and Alexander, but after Alexander died, he had it much worse with Antipater and company in control. I think he was forced to take poison or something.John

[susan]

I think that after the stresses of the Indian campaign and in particular the wound at Multan, it was only a matter of time before Alexander died naturally - before that he was 'Action man', after that there is little account of action on his behalf - more of his being carried by boat, being drawn by carriage, sailing. If he hadn't died before he left Babylon, the Arabian expedition may have killed him anyway. I think his generals knew this, they made their own plans privately and waited - but waiting for the inevitable is not the same as hastening it - and in such a high-profile death the accusations would have flown at once if there was any suspicion.
What an accusation his enemies could have fling at Perdiccas say - "you try to hang on to Alexander's empire yet you were involved in his poisoning" - it could not all have been hushed up.Susan

[susa]

Hi John'Argument' so to speak.Alexander is a needle in a haystack. Or perhaps hay in a haystack anyway....susa

[maciek]

It's strange that in my copy it is six years - but it is only a detail. It seams all right good point what about the rest I spend half a night to write it! Why Plutarch forgot this one? maybe it was no so serious claims only words of man who was always against all what was macedonian and they didn't treat him as a real source. You remember his role when Thebes revolted how cleaver he tried to be with that fake soldier pritending to Alexander's soldier and who saw Alex's death and how suprized Thebians was seeing just few days after it Alexander in a flesh standing under their walls. But I agree that it proofs that some rumours about it was in greece just after AlexGÇÖs death.Maciek

[maciek]

Susan I think that his sailing along the Indus river was a part of his plan and he was still very active - Malle's campaign, Gedrosian desert, his rides on mountain tribes after Hephaistion death, not mention about his political moves. Altrough all sources mentions about some change in his character after first turning back from India and second -terrible wound in Malle's city when his lung was pierced by arrow. this wound had to be fatal one and weekened his body which was more vulnerable for sickneses. He was also disapointed by this turning back - he wanted to conquer all world. But his activity was quite ok in those circumstances and after short breack I belive he would lead another victory campaign.Maciek

[marcus]

Certainly I think it would be wrong to say that Alexander relaxed after turning back from India.As you intimate, Maciek, what is surprising is that Alexander lived as long as he did. The fact that he did not die from the wound in Malli is remarkable, and to follow that up with the march through Gedrosia (albeit some time later) must have seriously damaged his body. This is one of the reasons why I don't think he was poisoned - nobody needed to poison him, because he was well on his way out anyway. It's just that he didn't know it!All the bestMarcus

[susan]

I didn't mean he was relaxing, I think he'd worn himself out physically and mentally. The Chaldean seers who prophesied imminent death probably did it as much on the basis of what he looked like as what the sacrifice's liver lobes looked like. Plus look at the top generals - Craterus was ill, Hephaestion had died - a natural death was not surprising.Susan

[agesilaos]

I think a salient point is being missed here; yes Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch, Arrian and Justin all mention the poisoning theory but ultimately all this shows is that they had all read the same source ie Kleitarchos. Arrian and Plutarch reject it, Curtius and Diodoros pay it lip service ; only Justin takes it for a fact. It is also of note that all the vulgate authors mention the fact that this story was suppressed by the power of the Successor's, I would say this was Kleitarchos' own excuse for his big lie not being current. Ultimately his source will have been Olypias' propaganda.

[John]

Maciek,Do you have the hiccups? I'm sorry if you haven't turned me into your complete slave yet for answering your questions. Anyway, I like to take them one at a time, and I'm not even sure I got through to you on the first one. At least I can answer that one better!Q. Why does your translation of Plutarch say six years, and mine say five?A. Because when something happened five years in the future, the Greeks counted the present as year 1, the next year as year 2... up to 6. When we say something happened five years in the future, we count the present year as 0, the next year as 1... up to 5. Therefore, Plutarch's hekto (six) should get translated to 5. Your translator was somehow blind to this.That's all for now.John

[maciek]

Are You joking on me???
It was only additional question with no meaning to all this thread. I gave many more arguments and answering is your choice - answer if You like! I like sometimes to joke (about that night). For me it's no great matter if it was five or six years my friend!
MaciekP.S. I think it was a nice discussion (for me definitely it was) and You don't have to be such sarcastic.