The Length of His Reign

[amyntoros]

If the scholiast on Pindar is correct, then the nearest New Moon to the Winter Solstice of ~26th December (Julian) in 357BC took place on about 19th December and the Full Moon of the Olympics was on 30th July 356BC (the date of a tabulated Lunar eclipse). Since Samuel also states "we are probably safe in accepting the evidence that the festival culminated with the full moon", Philip's horse may have won the race a week or two earlier (i.e. very close to Alexander's birth on 20th July). Philip probably got news of his Olympic victory by galley, but the news of Alexander's birth may have travelled more slowly overland. There is anyway a close correspondence in the dates and Plutarch's date for Alexander's birth is further vindicated. Furthermore Plutarch knew when the Olympic Games were held and would have been aware if his Olympic victory story was inconsistent with his date for Alexander's birth - obviously it was not, but it is highly inconsistent with Alexander's birthday having been in the Autumn. The fact that the story of the coincidence of the three pieces of news is in both Justin and Plutarch strongly suggests that it came from an early source (most likely Cleitarchus). It would have been difficult for a contemporaneous source to invent such a public event, because many people still living would have known it for a lie. The only misrepresentation in this matter is by Arrian, who even contradicts himself by making Alexander approximately twenty at his accession at the beginning of his work and exactly twenty at his accession in his final pages.

Am sure Agesilaos will want to respond in his own thread, but I have some immediate thoughts.

Since Samuel also states "we are probably safe in accepting the evidence that the festival culminated with the full moon", Philip's horse may have won the race a week or two earlier (i.e. very close to Alexander's birth on 20th July). Philip probably got news of his Olympic victory by galley, but the news of Alexander's birth may have travelled more slowly overland.

The Sacred Month of the Olympic Games was to allow the attendees to travel to Olympia in safety, and the actual games took place over a period of only five days. I've read that the first day was for opening ceremonies and the second for the boys' events, leaving the third for the beginning of adult competition. If the last day of these particular Olympics was the 30th of July, as you have stated, then the third day of the games would have been the 28th of July and the earliest date that Philip's horse could have won the race. That would mean, if Plutarch is correct, that it took at least eight more days for the news of Alexander's birth to reach Philip than the news of his victory at the Olympics.

The fact that the story of the coincidence of the three pieces of news is in both Justin and Plutarch strongly suggests that it came from an early source (most likely Cleitarchus). It would have been difficult for a contemporaneous source to invent such a public event, because many people still living would have known it for a lie.

If it was a lie, I'm really not sure that many people would have known so, or whether they would have even cared if Cleitarchus wrote a lie or accepted a legend as truth. The lunar calendar meant that the common Greek did not celebrate an annual birthday, despite what is said online to the contrary. That seems to be the privilege of gods whose "birthdays" were celebrated monthly. There is no source evidence that I know of, prior to Alexander, of the average Joe having a birthday party. So if the date of his own birth mattered not to the common man, why would he have cared whether Alexander's was correct or not? Would the same people who were willing to let Alexander "be a god" have been concerned if a little creativity was involved in his birth day?

As for "the story of the coincidence of the three pieces of news", I don't quite see how that qualifies as "such a public event". Anyone not in attendance on Philip when the supposed news came would not have been able to verify it as fact. And anyone in attendance, messengers included, are unknown and might not have been alive when Cleitarchus published. But let's suppose that they were, and they read Cleitarchus and said "that's not true". What could they have done about it, if they cared enough to do something? Books were arduously copied by hand and presumably this particular one travelled all over the empire. Cleitarchus could hardly issue a retraction - and that's if he even cared. It's not as if the story was detrimental to Alexander's image. Quite the opposite, in fact. All Cleitarchus needed to say to my mythical objectors is that "this is what I was told" and leave it at that.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

I have some immediate thoughts.

Since Samuel also states "we are probably safe in accepting the evidence that the festival culminated with the full moon", Philip's horse may have won the race a week or two earlier (i.e. very close to Alexander's birth on 20th July). Philip probably got news of his Olympic victory by galley, but the news of Alexander's birth may have travelled more slowly overland.

The Sacred Month of the Olympic Games was to allow the attendees to travel to Olympia in safety, and the actual games took place over a period of only five days. I've read that the first day was for opening ceremonies and the second for the boys' events, leaving the third for the beginning of adult competition. If the last day of these particular Olympics was the 30th of July, as you have stated, then the third day of the games would have been the 28th of July and the earliest date that Philip's horse could have won the race. That would mean, if Plutarch is correct, that it took at least eight more days for the news of Alexander's birth to reach Philip than the news of his victory at the Olympics.

The fact that the story of the coincidence of the three pieces of news is in both Justin and Plutarch strongly suggests that it came from an early source (most likely Cleitarchus). It would have been difficult for a contemporaneous source to invent such a public event, because many people still living would have known it for a lie.

If it was a lie, I'm really not sure that many people would have known so, or whether they would have even cared if Cleitarchus wrote a lie or accepted a legend as truth. The lunar calendar meant that the common Greek did not celebrate an annual birthday, despite what is said online to the contrary. That seems to be the privilege of gods whose "birthdays" were celebrated monthly. There is no source evidence that I know of, prior to Alexander, of the average Joe having a birthday party. So if the date of his own birth mattered not to the common man, why would he have cared whether Alexander's was correct or not? Would the same people who were willing to let Alexander "be a god" have been concerned if a little creativity was involved in his birth day?

As for "the story of the coincidence of the three pieces of news", I don't quite see how that qualifies as "such a public event". Anyone not in attendance on Philip when the supposed news came would not have been able to verify it as fact. And anyone in attendance, messengers included, are unknown and might not have been alive when Cleitarchus published. But let's suppose that they were, and they read Cleitarchus and said "that's not true". What could they have done about it, if they cared enough to do something? Books were arduously copied by hand and presumably this particular one travelled all over the empire. Cleitarchus could hardly issue a retraction - and that's if he even cared. It's not as if the story was detrimental to Alexander's image. Quite the opposite, in fact. All Cleitarchus needed to say to my mythical objectors is that "this is what I was told" and leave it at that.

Although I have not read it, it seems that Stephen G Miller, “The Date of Olympic Festivals” MDAI(A) 90 (1975) 215-31 also concludes that the Olympic festival culminated at the second full moon after the Summer solstice. That was definitely 30th July (Julian) in 356BC (the solstice was on about 26th June).

We should suppose that the event that instigated the story of the triple news in Plutarch and Justin was Philip’s announcement of the three happy occurrences to his troops at Potidaea. He would have done this partly to boost morale, but also because the occurrences were all public events that would have become known by other routes within a month at the outside. Furthermore, the troops would have known that Philip would have had news of all of them directly. As a matter of trust therefore, Philip needed to announce the news before it leaked out. Otherwise his troops would have thought he was keeping secret things they had a right to know from him – the succession, for example, was a matter of keen interest to all Macedonians.

It follows that the credibility of Plutarch’s story requires principally that the events occurred sufficiently closely together that there was not time for news of one to leak out before another had happened. This was necessary for Philip to be able to announce all three together as news items. As I have already said, if any event took place more than about a month from any other, this criterion would not be met. This is a stringent criterion. For example, it is broken by Arrian’s implied autumnal date for Alexander’s birth. But it is closely obeyed by Plutarch’s date, because the gap between Alexander’s birth and the Olympic victory does indeed seem to be only about 8 days.

Innumerable reasons might be postulated for the simultaneous announcement of Alexander’s birth and the Olympic victory despite the former preceding the latter by about 8 days. Here are some (not exhaustive) examples: a) we don’t know exactly where Alexander was born – if it was somewhere remote or isolated then news might have been delayed; b) a weather event might have flooded or otherwise damaged the highways in Macedonia; c) Olympias may have wished to wait to ensure that the child was healthy before sending a messenger or some post-natal crisis may have delayed the dispatch of a messenger; d) Philip may have wished to await confirmation that the child was healthy before announcing its birth (since the announcement would also have constituted his official acknowledgement of the boy as his heir – he may have had a bad experience with Arrhidaeus); e) Philip may have expected good news from the Olympics and deliberately delayed announcing Alexander’s birth and his other victory for a few days in the hope of having a triple good news story for the sake of the extra boost to morale; f) something untoward may have befallen the first messenger carrying the news of Alexander’s birth…

Supposing that Cleitarchus (the acknowledged common source of Plutarch and Trogus) was the source of the triple news story, is it at all likely that he made it up or got it from a bad source and failed to check it? He was probably writing in Alexandria around 280BC. As I have said, it is very unlikely that the triple news was not announced to the army, so it would have to have been a famous event from recent history with some Macedonians still alive who had been at Potidaea. In these circumstances a complete invention stretches credulity. Cleitarchus cannot reasonably have been so careless of his credibility as to publish inventions that were easily refuted. The fact that we have discovered that the date of the Olympics in that year was consistent with the story provides independent corroboration, just as the story itself provides independent corroboration of the accuracy of Plutarch’s date for Alexander’s birth. Thirdly, the evidence suggesting that Timaeus was the ultimate source of Plutarch’s date bolsters its credibility. Fourthly, the only other implied date for Alexander’s birth from Arrian is not only non-specific and at odds with all the other evidence, but it is also intrinsically flawed as I have pointed out.

The date of birth mattered to the ancients not so much because of the celebration of birthdays as due to the need to be able to cast horoscopes accurately btw! You needed to know the configuration of the heavens at the time of birth to be able to do this. For this reason the date of birth was even more crucial to them than it is to us for birthday celebration purposes.

Best regards,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Supposing that Cleitarchus (the acknowledged common source of Plutarch and Trogus)...

Cleitarchus would, of course, be only one of Plutarch's sources. As has long been known, Plutarch incorporates several traditions including material from Marsayas, the Memoirs of Aristoxenos and the (fictional or otherwise) correspondence of Alexander (and his mother). To state that Cleitarchus is the common source of both Plutarch and Trogus is to place Plutarch - an eclectic plug - into a tightly vulgate hole.

[amyntoros]

Andrew, I wrote quite a long paragraph answering the earlier part of your recent reply but decided not to include it as I think my challenging all your suggestions as to reasons for the delayed news of A's birth might be a bit much to post here, especially as you say you have more! Suffice it to say that can do so (I saved the argument) so I'm not, as yet, convinced.

Supposing that Cleitarchus (the acknowledged common source of Plutarch and Trogus) was the source of the triple news story, is it at all likely that he made it up or got it from a bad source and failed to check it? He was probably writing in Alexandria around 280BC. As I have said, it is very unlikely that the triple news was not announced to the army, so it would have to have been a famous event from recent history with some Macedonians still alive who had been at Potidaea. In these circumstances a complete invention stretches credulity. Cleitarchus cannot reasonably have been so careless of his credibility as to publish inventions that were easily refuted. The fact that we have discovered that the date of the Olympics in that year was consistent with the story provides independent corroboration, just as the story itself provides independent corroboration of the accuracy of Plutarch’s date for Alexander’s birth. Thirdly, the evidence suggesting that Timaeus was the ultimate source of Plutarch’s date bolsters its credibility. Fourthly, the only other implied date for Alexander’s birth from Arrian is not only non-specific and at odds with all the other evidence, but it is also intrinsically flawed as I have pointed out.

But aren't we talking about the very same Cleitarchus who was responsible for publishing "a complete invention" as in the tale of the Amazon queen? This particular story was supported by some writers and challenged by others but it definitely does, and did, stretch credulity. You don't think this was a case of Cleitarchus "reasonably" being "so careless of his credibility as to publish inventions that were easily refuted". Or him having "made it up or got it from a bad source and failed to check it"? The very same story coming from Onesicritus certainly amused Lysimachus, and there was nary a mention of it by Alexander himself in his letter to Antipater. The daughter of the Scythian king is transformed by Cleitarchus into an Amazon queen, a woman right out of Greek mythology!! Oh, there were people in those times who would have wanted this to be true, and probably readers who thought that it was. But this was also a "famous event from recent history with some Macedonians still alive" who had been there. And yet the story stands. So, yes, it is likely that Cleitarchus could have done the same thing elsewhere, IMO. I stand by my earlier argument about it not mattering to the Macedonians whether the triple news was true or not, hence it wasn't challenged (see below).

The date of birth mattered to the ancients not so much because of the celebration of birthdays as due to the need to be able to cast horoscopes accurately btw! You needed to know the configuration of the heavens at the time of birth to be able to do this. For this reason the date of birth was even more crucial to them than it is to us for birthday celebration purposes.

Now I know about the huge interest in astrology in the later Hellenistic period and late antiquity, much of it because of the Babylonian and Egyptian influence, as in the Hermetic writings, etc. And I also know various Hellenistic philosophers were influenced by Plato's Cosmology, and even Plutarch himself wrote about astrology, but again this was Hellenistic and later – long after Alexander's birth and death. Technical manuals for casting and interpreting natal astrological charts have been found, but the earliest ones date to the late second century BC. I could see someone in this later period being interested in Alexander's birth date for this reason, but Alexander's contemporaries were long gone by then. I know of absolutely no reference to the casting of astrological natal horoscopes prior to Alexander's birth and/or up to the time of Cleitarchus' book. In fact, it is suggested that Berossus may have been responsible for introducing astrology to the Greeks - probably because of the statue erected to him in Athens - but as he wrote the History of Babylonia under Antiochus Soter around 290-288 BC before moving to Cos, there's no way he could have majorly influenced Macedonians at the time Cleitarchus published in Alexandria. Do you have earlier source information referring to astrological natal charts and astrological divination? Greek, not Babylonian, because we're discussing whether or not a contemporary of Philip would have cared about Alexander's birth date. I'm confident that these men, amongst the oldest in Alexander's army, would hardly have fallen under the influence of Babylonian mysticism during A's campaigns. Still, you have written that "the date of birth mattered to the ancients" and have applied this to A's and P's contemporaries so I'm presuming you have info from your research. Please post references because I would love to read them. And I'll happily copy any discussion of ancient astrology to the Off-Topic forum.

Best regards,

[agesilaos]

If the scholiast on Pindar is correct, then the nearest New Moon to the Winter Solstice of ~26th December (Julian) in 357BC took place on about 19th December and the Full Moon of the Olympics was on 30th July 356BC (the date of a tabulated Lunar eclipse).

Fatally for your argument the nearest new moon has nothing to do with anything, months start on the first new moon after the winter solstice here, the summer solstice at Athens and so on; perhaps at Delphi they worked predictively, but usual practice would have been to observe the regulating phenomenon and then start the month at the next new moon. This makes you a month early, the full moon of the eighth Elean month would have been 28 August. I have checked the lunar data from BC 359 to 341, and within it there is a clear pattern of 13 month years matching the intercalary pattern of the Octaeris system the same scholiast claims for Olympia, first year of cycle 354 (beginning 28 dec 355). Your 'nearest' method does not yield the required pattern failing in 346.

The fact that we have discovered that the date of the Olympics in that year was consistent with the story provides independent corroboration, just as the story itself provides independent corroboration of the accuracy of Plutarch’s date for Alexander’s birth. Thirdly, the evidence suggesting that Timaeus was the ultimate source of Plutarch’s date bolsters its credibility. Fourthly, the only other implied date for Alexander’s birth from Arrian is not only non-specific and at odds with all the other evidence, but it is also intrinsically flawed as I have pointed out.

It is only consistent with a modern interpretation, the scholiast would make it wrong. On any reckoning Alexander's birth was eight days earlier and closer at hand, I cannot be bothered to comment on flights of imagination so this mutual corroboration is another piece of bunk. Timaeus again! Either read what Ihave already written at length in the birthday thread or refute it, the 'evidence' rests solely in Hammond's analysis. The 'other evidence' is only this clearly late synchronism, no one can have predicted his invincibility until he had proved so, and Plutarch's unsourced date, Arrian's sources were close to Alexander yet did not give a specific birthday, as the second son it may not have been such a memorable event, he was NOT born an heir but a spare. Were natal astronomy so crucial kindly explain why the diviner Peithagoras, on Aristoboulos' authority, was clearly interpreting entrails and not casting horoscopes?

Amyntoros has dealt neatly with the still surprisingly common assertion that the ancients would never tell a refutable lie, Ptolemy's talking snakes anyone?

People have a very simple choice a date derived from a courtier, and a flatterer at that, whose evidence for accuracy; a stated date from an unknown source in Plutarch; and the inferrence from a late birth omen story whose details may support a late September(Dios) birth rather more than one in late July(Loos), messengers stopping off for twenty Rothman's and a Korinthian massage, notwithstanding

[Taphoi]

Supposing that Cleitarchus (the acknowledged common source of Plutarch and Trogus) was the source of the triple news story, is it at all likely that he made it up or got it from a bad source and failed to check it? He was probably writing in Alexandria around 280BC. As I have said, it is very unlikely that the triple news was not announced to the army, so it would have to have been a famous event from recent history with some Macedonians still alive who had been at Potidaea. In these circumstances a complete invention stretches credulity. Cleitarchus cannot reasonably have been so careless of his credibility as to publish inventions that were easily refuted. The fact that we have discovered that the date of the Olympics in that year was consistent with the story provides independent corroboration, just as the story itself provides independent corroboration of the accuracy of Plutarch’s date for Alexander’s birth. Thirdly, the evidence suggesting that Timaeus was the ultimate source of Plutarch’s date bolsters its credibility. Fourthly, the only other implied date for Alexander’s birth from Arrian is not only non-specific and at odds with all the other evidence, but it is also intrinsically flawed as I have pointed out.

But aren't we talking about the very same Cleitarchus who was responsible for publishing "a complete invention" as in the tale of the Amazon queen? This particular story was supported by some writers and challenged by others but it definitely does, and did, stretch credulity. You don't think this was a case of Cleitarchus "reasonably" being "so careless of his credibility as to publish inventions that were easily refuted". Or him having "made it up or got it from a bad source and failed to check it"? The very same story coming from Onesicritus certainly amused Lysimachus, and there was nary a mention of it by Alexander himself in his letter to Antipater. The daughter of the Scythian king is transformed by Cleitarchus into an Amazon queen, a woman right out of Greek mythology!! Oh, there were people in those times who would have wanted this to be true, and probably readers who thought that it was. But this was also a "famous event from recent history with some Macedonians still alive" who had been there. And yet the story stands. So, yes, it is likely that Cleitarchus could have done the same thing elsewhere, IMO. I stand by my earlier argument about it not mattering to the Macedonians whether the triple news was true or not, hence it wasn't challenged (see below).

It wasn't a "complete invention" (see below). The closest thing to a complete invention in the five main Alexander sources was the pair of talking snakes in Arrian's Anabasis which led Alexander to and from Siwa.

The Visit of the Queen of the Amazons
In the ancient world (as also today), Alexander’s putative encounter with the Queen of the Amazons was one of the more controversial episodes in his career. The issue is neatly addressed by Plutarch in chapter 46 of his Life of Alexander:
Here [beyond the River Jaxartes] the Queen of the Amazons came to see Alexander, as most writers say, among whom are Cleitarchus, Polycleitus, Onesicritus, Antigenes and Ister; but Aristobulus, Chares the royal usher, Ptolemy, Anticleides, Philo the Theban, and Philip of Theangela, besides Hecataeus of Eretria, Philip the Chalcidian, and Duris of Samos, say that this is a fiction. And it would seem that Alexander’s testimony is in favour of their statement. For in a letter to Antipater, which gives all the details minutely, he says that the Scythian king offered him his daughter in marriage, but he makes no mention of the Amazon. And the story is told that many years afterwards Onesicritus was reading aloud to Lysimachus, who was now king, the fourth book of his history, in which was the tale of the Amazon, at which Lysimachus smiled gently and said: “And where was I at the time?” However, our belief or disbelief of this story will neither increase nor diminish our admiration for Alexander.
It is certainly true that the daughter of the king of the Scythians dwelling beyond the Cimmerian Bosphorus was offered to Alexander in marriage, since this is also recorded by Arrian, Anabasis 4.15.2 and Curtius 8.1.9. Notionally, these were the Scythians dwelling in the vicinity of the Ukraine, but this may well be entangled with the geographical misconception that the Syr-Darya or Tanais or Jaxartes River was the border of Europe. If so, then the offer, which was received whilst Alexander was at Maracanda, may have come from a Scythian king perhaps based north of the Jaxartes. Some have supposed that Alexander’s encounter with the Amazon queen was derived through embroidery of this incident, which is certainly a possibility. There is archaeological evidence for warrior women on the Russian Steppes in Alexander’s era in the form of female ice-mummies preserved with their weapons in elaborate tombs dug into the Siberian permafrost. Hence the suggestion that Alexander encountered high status warrior women in this general vicinity may have some validity.
Curtius 6.4.17 appears to be following Cleitarchus in locating an Amazon homeland to Alexander’s right as he approached the Caspian from the southeast. This would suggest that Cleitarchus placed it on the steppe to the east of the Caspian Sea. His source on this is likely to have been Onesicritus, who seems to be the earliest of the sources listed by Plutarch for Alexander having hosted a visit from the Amazon Queen. Subsequently, in giving the specific story of the visit of Thalestris, Cleitarchus suggested that she had travelled from the traditional Amazon homeland near the River Thermodon on the southern shores of the Black Sea (i.e. west of Hyrcania and very far to the west of the Caspian Sea.) It is likely that Cleitarchus or his source (Onesicritus?) has attempted to reconcile traditional legends of the Amazon nation with a visit to Alexander’s camp of a high status warrior woman from east of the Caspian Sea. This was perhaps facilitated by the haziness of Cleitarchus’ grasp of the geography of the area.

The date of birth mattered to the ancients not so much because of the celebration of birthdays as due to the need to be able to cast horoscopes accurately btw! You needed to know the configuration of the heavens at the time of birth to be able to do this. For this reason the date of birth was even more crucial to them than it is to us for birthday celebration purposes.

Now I know about the huge interest in astrology in the later Hellenistic period and late antiquity, much of it because of the Babylonian and Egyptian influence, as in the Hermetic writings, etc. And I also know various Hellenistic philosophers were influenced by Plato's Cosmology, and even Plutarch himself wrote about astrology, but again this was Hellenistic and later – long after Alexander's birth and death. Technical manuals for casting and interpreting natal astrological charts have been found, but the earliest ones date to the late second century BC. I could see someone in this later period being interested in Alexander's birth date for this reason, but Alexander's contemporaries were long gone by then. I know of absolutely no reference to the casting of astrological natal horoscopes prior to Alexander's birth and/or up to the time of Cleitarchus' book. In fact, it is suggested that Berossus may have been responsible for introducing astrology to the Greeks - probably because of the statue erected to him in Athens - but as he wrote the History of Babylonia under Antiochus Soter around 290-288 BC before moving to Cos, there's no way he could have majorly influenced Macedonians at the time Cleitarchus published in Alexandria. Do you have earlier source information referring to astrological natal charts and astrological divination? Greek, not Babylonian, because we're discussing whether or not a contemporary of Philip would have cared about Alexander's birth date. I'm confident that these men, amongst the oldest in Alexander's army, would hardly have fallen under the influence of Babylonian mysticism during A's campaigns. Still, you have written that "the date of birth mattered to the ancients" and have applied this to A's and P's contemporaries so I'm presuming you have info from your research. Please post references because I would love to read them. And I'll happily copy any discussion of ancient astrology to the Off-Topic forum.

The origins of much of the astrology that would later develop in Asia, Europe and the Middle East are found among the ancient Babylonians and their system of celestial omens that began to be compiled around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. This system later spread either directly or indirectly through the Babylonians to other areas such as, China and Greece where it merged with preexisting indigenous forms of astrology. It came to Greece initially as early as the middle of the 4th century BCE, and then around the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE after the Alexandrian conquests this Babylonian astrology was mixed with the Egyptian tradition of Decanic astrology to create horoscopic astrology. This system is labeled as "horoscopic astrology" because, unlike the previous traditions, it employed the use of the ascendant, otherwise known as the horoskopos ("hour marker") in Greek, and the twelve celestial houses which are derived from it. The focus on the natal chart of the individual, as derived from the position of the planets and stars at the time of birth, represents the most significant contribution and shift of emphasis that was made during the Hellenistic tradition of astrology. This new form of astrology quickly spread across the ancient world into Europe, and the Middle East.

[amyntoros]

I won't quote all of your post on the Amazon queen because it is available to view right above this post. Yes, Andrew, everyone has been trying to find justification for the Amazon queen story for the longest time. But analyzing the story and trying to find out how it came about doesn't make it true as stated! And it wasn't true. If any woman even claiming to be (and qualifying as) an Amazon queen had turned up at the camp then Alexander would have been all over it! A lover of the Iliad and a believer in his gods, and the queen of one of the most enduring female myths came to see him? Imagine how he could have spun that one. But he didn't. As Plutarch says, Alexander didn't mention it. However you want to view it, the visit of the Amazon queen was a fiction. Saying that someone is who they are not is fiction! As you have written, "It is likely that Cleitarchus or his source (Onesicritus?) has attempted to reconcile traditional legends of the Amazon nation with a visit to Alexander's camp of a high status warrior woman from east of the Caspian Sea. This was perhaps facilitated by the haziness of Cleitarchus' grasp of the geography of the area." Attempting to reconcile traditional legends by turning the proffered-in-marriage daughter of a Scythian king into a major woman of mythology is fictionalizing an event - and this now fictionalized event was refuted by many Macedonians still alive when Cleitarchus wrote. Fictionalizing is invention, something you have emphatically claimed that Cleitarchus would not have done because he "cannot reasonably have been so careless of his credibility as to publish inventions that were easily refuted". Oh and if Cleitarchus' grasp of the geography of the area was hazy then he should have checked his sources, something else you insist he would have done.

The origins of much of the astrology that would later develop in Asia, Europe and the Middle East are found among the ancient Babylonians and their system of celestial omens that began to be compiled around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. This system later spread either directly or indirectly through the Babylonians to other areas such as, China and Greece where it merged with preexisting indigenous forms of astrology. It came to Greece initially as early as the middle of the 4th century BCE, and then around the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE after the Alexandrian conquests this Babylonian astrology was mixed with the Egyptian tradition of Decanic astrology to create horoscopic astrology. This system is labeled as "horoscopic astrology" because, unlike the previous traditions, it employed the use of the ascendant, otherwise known as the horoskopos ("hour marker") in Greek, and the twelve celestial houses which are derived from it. The focus on the natal chart of the individual, as derived from the position of the planets and stars at the time of birth, represents the most significant contribution and shift of emphasis th]at was made during the Hellenistic tradition of astrology.This new form of astrology quickly spread across the ancient world into Europe, and the Middle East.

Oh, you have quoted Wikipedia and I was hoping for ancient sources. Ah well, here goes anyway. For the Wiki statement that astrology "came to Greece initially as early as the middle of the 4th century BCE" they must surely be referring to Plato. Try and find a reference to casting natal horoscopes in Plato. No, not there. This early Greek astrology isn't nearly the same thing. And you've also bold-faced "The focus on the natal chart of the individual, as derived from the position of the planets and stars at the time of birth, represents the most significant contribution and shift of emphasis that was made during the Hellenistic tradition of astrology." Yep ... the shift of emphasis was Hellenistic! And even the Wiki you've quoted says that horoscopic astrology came about "around the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE after the Alexandrian conquests". They are even more emphatic about the time it fully developed than I was in my previous post. Nothing here to support a claim that Alexander's contemporaries would have cared about the date of Alexander's birth because of horoscope casting.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

I won't quote all of your post on the Amazon queen because it is available to view right above this post. Yes, Andrew, everyone has been trying to find justification for the Amazon queen story for the longest time. But analyzing the story and trying to find out how it came about doesn't make it true as stated! And it wasn't true. If any woman even claiming to be (and qualifying as) an Amazon queen had turned up at the camp then Alexander would have been all over it! A lover of the Iliad and a believer in his gods, and the queen of one of the most enduring female myths came to see him? Imagine how he could have spun that one. But he didn't. As Plutarch says, Alexander didn't mention it. However you want to view it, the visit of the Amazon queen was a fiction. Saying that someone is who they are not is fiction! As you have written, "It is likely that Cleitarchus or his source (Onesicritus?) has attempted to reconcile traditional legends of the Amazon nation with a visit to Alexander's camp of a high status warrior woman from east of the Caspian Sea. This was perhaps facilitated by the haziness of Cleitarchus' grasp of the geography of the area." Attempting to reconcile traditional legends by turning the proffered-in-marriage daughter of a Scythian king into a major woman of mythology is fictionalizing an event - and this now fictionalized event was refuted by many Macedonians still alive when Cleitarchus wrote. Fictionalizing is invention, something you have emphatically claimed that Cleitarchus would not have done because he "cannot reasonably have been so careless of his credibility as to publish inventions that were easily refuted". Oh and if Cleitarchus' grasp of the geography of the area was hazy then he should have checked his sources, something else you insist he would have done.

The origins of much of the astrology that would later develop in Asia, Europe and the Middle East are found among the ancient Babylonians and their system of celestial omens that began to be compiled around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. This system later spread either directly or indirectly through the Babylonians to other areas such as, China and Greece where it merged with preexisting indigenous forms of astrology. It came to Greece initially as early as the middle of the 4th century BCE, and then around the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE after the Alexandrian conquests this Babylonian astrology was mixed with the Egyptian tradition of Decanic astrology to create horoscopic astrology. This system is labeled as "horoscopic astrology" because, unlike the previous traditions, it employed the use of the ascendant, otherwise known as the horoskopos ("hour marker") in Greek, and the twelve celestial houses which are derived from it. The focus on the natal chart of the individual, as derived from the position of the planets and stars at the time of birth, represents the most significant contribution and shift of emphasis th]at was made during the Hellenistic tradition of astrology.This new form of astrology quickly spread across the ancient world into Europe, and the Middle East.

Oh, you have quoted Wikipedia and I was hoping for ancient sources. Ah well, here goes anyway. For the Wiki statement that astrology "came to Greece initially as early as the middle of the 4th century BCE" they must surely be referring to Plato. Try and find a reference to casting natal horoscopes in Plato. No, not there. This early Greek astrology isn't nearly the same thing. And you've also bold-faced "The focus on the natal chart of the individual, as derived from the position of the planets and stars at the time of birth, represents the most significant contribution and shift of emphasis that was made during the Hellenistic tradition of astrology." Yep ... the shift of emphasis was Hellenistic! And even the Wiki you've quoted says that horoscopic astrology came about "around the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE after the Alexandrian conquests". They are even more emphatic about the time it fully developed than I was in my previous post. Nothing here to support a claim that Alexander's contemporaries would have cared about the date of Alexander's birth because of horoscope casting.

Best regards,

What Cleitarchus did was mix up genuine reports of warrior women from the eastern Caspian area contacting Alexander's expedition with traditional Greek stories about Amazons. It was actually the opposite of invention: source mixing! All the Greeks were confused about the geography of that area in Cleitarchus' time, because Alexander's men had told them that the Jaxartes was the Tanais!
What both you and Wikipedia seem to be saying is that the Greek interest in horoscopes based on the date of birth blossomed from Alexander's invasions of Egypt and Babylonia. Timaeus was working after those invasions, so he might have been inspired by horoscope interests. Cleitarchus was writing in Egypt, one of the sources of horoscopes based on the date of birth.
Best regards,
Andrew

[Paralus]

What Cleitarchus did was mix up genuine reports of warrior women from the eastern Caspian area contacting Alexander's expedition with traditional Greek stories about Amazons. It was actually the opposite of invention: source mixing!

There really are times when one must accept that one might, in fact, be in error. Describing the story of the visit of an Amazon queen visiting Alexander for the purpose of conceiving a son as "source mixing" is a masterpiece of sophistry. It is a fable pure and simple. Arrian mentions "Amazons" only twice. At 4.15.4 Pharasmenes includes them in the evident hope that Alexander will be tempted to expand the former's realm. At 7.13.2-6 Atropates brings Amazons to Alexander. Both cases are unarguably logoi (tales/fables) and Arrian absolutley treats them as such claiming that "neither Aristoboulos nor Ptolemy nor any other reliable witness" has so much as mentioned these Amazons. He further (correctly) asserts that Xenophon (who clearly mentions the tribes of the area including the Colchians and Phasianoi) will have noted them had they been extant. He did not; they were not. If this story emanates from Cleitarchus then Arrian clearly understood something you do not: this was fiction and so he treated it as such and did not even bother to record it as a logos.

It is clear that the ancients could and did invent stories. The talking snakes have been mentioned and others also come to mind. Ctesias claimed to have seen a lion whose tail was that of a "scorpion sting" (Aelian, NA 4.21). This is, of course, invention pure and simple. Whatever one decides of the tales of Alexander "solving" the Gordion knot (he used his remarkable intelligence or he simply cut it) one is fiction and thus invented as those with him well knew. Regardless of the fact that the Babylonians control-irrigated, Herodotus' assertion that the Persians denied water, flowing from five mountain passes, to the Chorasmians, the Hyrcanians, Parthians, Sarangians, and Thamanaei (3.117) is utter invention and demonstrable rubbish. Somewhat more arcane Isocrates, according to certain modern views, could contrast the King's Peace with the peace made between the Athenians and the Persians that never existed (that of Callias) and was fabricated for the purpose.

There very likely are more but I've not, as yet, consulted the authority of Wikipedia.

[amyntoros]

What Cleitarchus did was mix up genuine reports of warrior women from the eastern Caspian area contacting Alexander's expedition with traditional Greek stories about Amazons. It was actually the opposite of invention: source mixing! All the Greeks were confused about the geography of that area in Cleitarchus' time, because Alexander's men had told them that the Jaxartes was the Tanais!

I had almost finished answering this yesterday when I lost the post due to an internet blip! I'll try and reconstruct. First of all, claiming that Cleitarchus confused his sources hardly inspires confidence in the accuracy of the contents of his book, something you've been defending with zeal. In fact, if I believed he mixed up genuine reports of warrior women contacting Alexander's expedition with "traditional Greek stories about Amazons" then I would be forced to think him an idiot! I'll explain. During this period the Greeks didn't view tales of the Amazons as "traditional stories". They were both history and religion, as the Greeks did not distinguish. Religion wasn't a once-a-week affair, or something one had but didn't practice. Hence they were always hoping or expecting to find the location of the Amazons, something the Romans continued with fervour. Cleitarchus would have known the stories by heart, and, unless one wants to believe he had never read the Iliad, he would have known that the Amazons sided with the Trojans, this being the last time they were "seen", and that the then Amazon queen was killed by Achilles. More importantly, the Amazon queen features in the labors of Herakles - for the the ninth labor he was ordered to take from Hippolyte, the queen of the Amazons, her girdle, the ensign of her kingly power, which she had received as a present from Ares.

No one, and I mean no one, could possibly mix up these myths with tales of warrior women visiting Alexander. By having the queen come willingly to Alexander, given that previous queens had been killed by both Herakles and Achilles, Cleitarchus had inserted Alexander into the myths - into the religion, if you like. There's no mix-up here. This is deliberate mythologizing, something that continues in the sources with Alexander excelling Herakles and reaching the place from which Dionysos came. These later claims were impossible for the ancient Greeks to disprove - no other Greeks had travelled as far. The story of the Amazon queen, however, is a different matter. Everyone at this "public event" would have had to support it for it to have been even tentatively believed. Of course they didn't, because it was fiction. Deliberate fiction, and for once I'm not going to add "in my opinion" because a large number of important members of A's campaign knew it to be fiction also. And they said so.

What both you and Wikipedia seem to be saying is that the Greek interest in horoscopes based on the date of birth blossomed from Alexander's invasions of Egypt and Babylonia. Timaeus was working after those invasions, so he might have been inspired by horoscope interests. Cleitarchus was writing in Egypt, one of the sources of horoscopes based on the date of birth.

If you look at my previous posts and even the wiki you posted you will see that horoscope interests as we understand them, and which you have claimed were prevalent at the time of Cleitarchus' writing, did not arise until later in the Hellenistic period. Much, much later. It doesn't matter that Cleitarchus was living and writing in Egypt. Neither he, nor the Macedonians still alive from the time Philip received his supposed "triple news" (focusing on the original reason for this discussion) could possibly have cared about an interest that had not yet "blossomed" and was not to do so until long after they were gone. Same thing with Timaeus. Past and present events and interests may inspire individuals. Future events and interests cannot do so.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

I had almost finished answering this yesterday when I lost the post due to an internet blip! I'll try and reconstruct. First of all, claiming that Cleitarchus confused his sources hardly inspires confidence in the accuracy of the contents of his book, something you've been defending with zeal. In fact, if I believed he mixed up genuine reports of warrior women contacting Alexander's expedition with "traditional Greek stories about Amazons" then I would be forced to think him an idiot! I'll explain. During this period the Greeks didn't view tales of the Amazons as "traditional stories". They were both history and religion, as the Greeks did not distinguish. Religion wasn't a once-a-week affair, or something one had but didn't practice. Hence they were always hoping or expecting to find the location of the Amazons, something the Romans continued with fervour. Cleitarchus would have known the stories by heart, and, unless one wants to believe he had never read the Iliad, he would have known that the Amazons sided with the Trojans, this being the last time they were "seen", and that the then Amazon queen was killed by Achilles. More importantly, the Amazon queen features in the labors of Herakles - for the the ninth labor he was ordered to take from Hippolyte, the queen of the Amazons, her girdle, the ensign of her kingly power, which she had received as a present from Ares.

No one, and I mean no one, could possibly mix up these myths with tales of warrior women visiting Alexander. By having the queen come willingly to Alexander, given that previous queens had been killed by both Herakles and Achilles, Cleitarchus had inserted Alexander into the myths - into the religion, if you like. There's no mix-up here. This is deliberate mythologizing, something that continues in the sources with Alexander excelling Herakles and reaching the place from which Dionysos came. These later claims were impossible for the ancient Greeks to disprove - no other Greeks had travelled as far. The story of the Amazon queen, however, is a different matter. Everyone at this "public event" would have had to support it for it to have been even tentatively believed. Of course they didn't, because it was fiction. Deliberate fiction, and for once I'm not going to add "in my opinion" because a large number of important members of A's campaign knew it to be fiction also. And they said so.

Sorry about your blip. I would put it to you that your argument here is exactly like saying that modern accounts of Bigfoot, the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster etc are "deliberate mythologising" and "deliberate fiction". Is that what you believe? Amazon tales were to the Greeks very like these modern myths, which in fact many serious researchers have taken very seriously (and have believed, with fewer excuses than could be applied in the case of Cleitarchus), because "sightings" and other "evidence" keep on springing up. I would join you in criticising belief in such myths, but I strongly dispute that all (or even most) people who believe in them are inevitably guilty of deliberate chicanery.

On the horoscope matter, your argument appears to be with Wikipedia dating the origin of Hellenistic astrology and Greek use of natal horoscopes to around the time of Alexander's birth rather than with me.

Best regards,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

On the horoscope matter, your argument appears to be with Wikipedia dating the origin of Hellenistic astrology and Greek use of natal horoscopes to around the time of Alexander's birth rather than with me.

Darn it, I lost another post! Cleitarchus will have to wait until later but the above will not, as I will be brief. First of all, I would never use Wikipedia for any reliable information. You are the one who used it support your adamant statement that natal horoscopes were in use around the time of Cleitarchus' writing. I only referenced the Wiki because it actually doesn't support you even though you suggested it did. So my argument is still with you. (I should point out that any college student in the U.S. found using Wikipedia as their source for a paper would either lose marks, or in some colleges would receive a "fail".) I've been enjoying the study of social aspects of the period of Alexander's birth through early Hellenistic times for some years now. I did not refute your statement because I did a quick check with Wikipedia. I assumed you did not make such a statement based on a quick online check either, mostly because you were so insistent of the truth of it. If you are so resolute in stating that such horoscopes were in use at the relevant time then I await your research and the posting of some reliable sources - either ancient sources or modern and reputable scholarly sites which provide ancient references, etc. I know of none, so the ball is in your court.

Best regards,

[marcus]

I haven't had much time to spend on Pothos recently, so apologies if I have missed any vital posts, but with a few minutes to spare I have to wade in on this.

I would put it to you that your argument here is exactly like saying that modern accounts of Bigfoot, the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster etc are "deliberate mythologising" and "deliberate fiction". Is that what you believe? Amazon tales were to the Greeks very like these modern myths, which in fact many serious researchers have taken very seriously (and have believed, with fewer excuses than could be applied in the case of Cleitarchus), because "sightings" and other "evidence" keep on springing up.

I don't really see that there is any comparison between Amyntoros' comments and the 'sightings' of Bigfoot, et al. With those there are, as you say, "sightings" and other "evidence" that keep on springing up (and the size of the pinch of salt with which people take them is infinitely variable, as we know).

The key point about the Amazon women is that there is no such recurring evidence. The plain fact is that Ptolemy and Aristobulus "and several other reliable sources" never mentioned the Amazonian visit, and Lysimachus clearly indicated that it didn't happen. There is no "evidence" or "sighting" of Amazons anywhere else, except in the pages of literature, which anyway - in the case of Herodotus - pre-dates Alexander by a good century or so.

There's no mixing of sources - it's made up.

ATB

[Paralus]

The key point about the Amazon women is that there is no such recurring evidence. The plain fact is that Ptolemy and Aristobulus "and several other reliable sources" never mentioned the Amazonian visit, and Lysimachus clearly indicated that it didn't happen. There is no "evidence" or "sighting" of Amazons anywhere else, except in the pages of literature, which anyway - in the case of Herodotus - pre-dates Alexander by a good century or so.

There's no mixing of sources - it's made up.

Couldn't have said it any clearer myself. Amyntoros' brief exposition on the nature of the Amazons with respect to Greek religion/mythology serves to indicate the weak and desperate nature of the counter "argument". This argument has now descended into deflection with an attempt to portray Wikipedia as that which Amyntoros is debating. This, I imagine, is because there is too much contrary evidence to either emend away or ignore; a favourite crutch not in play.

Amyntoros is quite correct with respect to Wikipedia: such is not accepted here at High School level; proper sources (primary if possible) being the focus. I note that source material was asked for and Wiki produced. An essay submitted for the Higher School Certificate citing Wikipedia as its authority would be dismissed. The "argument" above citing Wikipedia as its authority should be treated similarly.

Mr Bradman! Hand me your bat...

[amyntoros]

Sorry about your blip. I would put it to you that your argument here is exactly like saying that modern accounts of Bigfoot, the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster etc are "deliberate mythologising" and "deliberate fiction". Is that what you believe? Amazon tales were to the Greeks very like these modern myths, which in fact many serious researchers have taken very seriously (and have believed, with fewer excuses than could be applied in the case of Cleitarchus), because "sightings" and other "evidence" keep on springing up. I would join you in criticising belief in such myths, but I strongly dispute that all (or even most) people who believe in them are inevitably guilty of deliberate chicanery.

Marcus has already written regarding modern myths so all I really feel it is necessary to add is that I never implied that all or most people who believe in myths are inevitably guilty of deliberate chicanery. Nor did I criticize their myths. I have my own beliefs regarding religion (which I will keep to myself) but I have the greatest respect for the beliefs of everyone else, whatever they may be or used to be. I have NO idea how you came to these conclusions from reading my post in which I briefly tried to explain the ancient belief system. Most of the ancient world believed in their own myths. Cleitarchus wasn't inevitably guilty of anything - I see him as a man who had no problem inventing a story or repeating an invention, or adding a little embellishment when it either made for a good tale or improved upon Alexander's image. If anything this is a reflection of his character, not of his beliefs. IMO, he just wanted to write a popular book and wasn't above bending the truth if it helped his story. There's no hubris in Cleitarchus' story of the Amazons btw, they were human characters even in the myths, so he could take free reign with his/their story without any offense to his gods. The problem for him is that there were other people alive who were there with Alexander, and who refuted his story, although it obviously didn't do him or his book any harm, and the legend actually grew into the version found in the Romance. All of which leaves me exactly where I began, with the story of the triple news delivered to Philip. Just because Cleitarchus wrote something does not mean it had to be true.

Best regards,