pothos.org

MY HUBBY TOLD ME HE SAW A DOCUMENTARY A ND IT SAID ATG WAS TAKING COCAINE. NOW I DON'T BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE. I BELIEVE HE WAS A GO GO GO TYPE OF PERSON. NINA

nina wrote:MY HUBBY TOLD ME HE SAW A DOCUMENTARY A ND IT SAID ATG WAS TAKING COCAINE. NOW I DON'T BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE. I BELIEVE HE WAS A GO GO GO TYPE OF PERSON. NINA

Well, there's certainly not the slightest shred of evidence to suggest that Alexander was ingesting anything other than alcohol. What utter nonsense!

(I don't know whether cocaine 'existed' then, anyway; then again, Class A drugs are hardly my speciality.)

ATB

but don't you think he maybe meant director Oliver Stone, not Alexander?

Some internet legends are worth reporting the instant one reads them, such as this from The Hamptons Online.

The sport of kings has roots reaching back to 600 BC (Before Cocktails were served in the tent) when the Turkomans beat the Persians in a nationalistic show of pride. One of the earliest celebrity polo players was Alexander the Great who used the metaphor of the game to describe his thirst for conquest, GÇ£I am the stick, the ball is the world.GÇ¥

Meaning what, exactly? "I am the means by which the earth gets a pounding"? And then there's the obvious question - if I am the stick and the ball is the world, then what is the horse??? Mmm, presumably it's the army, but I still think it's a silly quote.

Not to mention that to my knowledge there's no ethnic group that would have been known as Turkomans in 600 BC!

The above quote isn't to be found in any ancient source, btw. But then you already knew that.

Best regards

I have heard of Alexander's alleged use of cocaine, or at least chewing the leaf which is used to produce cocaine, and possibly opium. Cocaine, as it is known in the powdered form, was not "invented" until the mid 19th century. The Greeks, I believe, had known about the altering effects of opium (by chewing the sticky residue emitted from the flower) but I don't think they had been exposed to the coca leaf at this point. Nor does any reference of drug use, excluding alcohol, appear in the primary sources.

But, if one were to consider the possibility of Alexander and his army using drugs like opium to numb pain or chewing the coca leaf for a burst of prolonged energy, it does make his history even more interesting. When one thinks of the many famous and heroic acts of Alexander, which almost mirror insanity, it wouldn't be too unimaginable to think of him under the influence of some kind of mind-altering drug. Just a thought.

rocktupac wrote:I have heard of Alexander's alleged use of cocaine, or at least chewing the leaf which is used to produce cocaine, and possibly opium. Cocaine, as it is known in the powdered form, was not "invented" until the mid 19th century. The Greeks, I believe, had known about the altering effects of opium (by chewing the sticky residue emitted from the flower) but I don't think they had been exposed to the coca leaf at this point. Nor does any reference of drug use, excluding alcohol, appear in the primary sources.

But, if one were to consider the possibility of Alexander and his army using drugs like opium to numb pain or chewing the coca leaf for a burst of prolonged energy, it does make his history even more interesting. When one thinks of the many famous and heroic acts of Alexander, which almost mirror insanity, it wouldn't be too unimaginable to think of him under the influence of some kind of mind-altering drug. Just a thought.

I'm really no expert on drugs, so I'll expect to be corrected on this one. I agree that it's easy to understand how some of Alexander's acts of 'mindless' bravery could be attributed to drugs of some kind (and the Scandinavian berserkers come to mind here), I don't know what they could have been.

1. Sure, the Greeks knew about opium, which as we know comes from a poppy. Are all the opium poppies grown in Afghanistan today owe their existence to the Greek invaders, or did they already grow them there? Interesting point to investigate.
2. Isn't the coca plant, from which cocaine comes, a South American plant, and therefore it wouldn't have been available in Europe and Asia at that time.
3. While I suppose cocaine could be termed "mind-altering" to some extent, it isn't in the same way that LSD is ... i.e. it isn't hallucinatory.
4. Opium, on the other hand, does have soporific and some hallucinatory effects, but as it works as a soporific and anaesthetic (medicinally), then it wouldn't be responsible for fuelling Alexander's massive energy and heroics.

Personally I don't believe that there is any way he could have taken cocaine (unless someone can tell me that I'm wrong about the coca plant) ... but it's quite amusing to speculate, isn't it?

ATB

marcus wrote:

rocktupac wrote:I have heard of Alexander's alleged use of cocaine, or at least chewing the leaf which is used to produce cocaine, and possibly opium. Cocaine, as it is known in the powdered form, was not "invented" until the mid 19th century. The Greeks, I believe, had known about the altering effects of opium (by chewing the sticky residue emitted from the flower) but I don't think they had been exposed to the coca leaf at this point. Nor does any reference of drug use, excluding alcohol, appear in the primary sources.

But, if one were to consider the possibility of Alexander and his army using drugs like opium to numb pain or chewing the coca leaf for a burst of prolonged energy, it does make his history even more interesting. When one thinks of the many famous and heroic acts of Alexander, which almost mirror insanity, it wouldn't be too unimaginable to think of him under the influence of some kind of mind-altering drug. Just a thought.

I'm really no expert on drugs, so I'll expect to be corrected on this one. I agree that it's easy to understand how some of Alexander's acts of 'mindless' bravery could be attributed to drugs of some kind (and the Scandinavian berserkers come to mind here), I don't know what they could have been.

1. Sure, the Greeks knew about opium, which as we know comes from a poppy. Are all the opium poppies grown in Afghanistan today owe their existence to the Greek invaders, or did they already grow them there? Interesting point to investigate.
2. Isn't the coca plant, from which cocaine comes, a South American plant, and therefore it wouldn't have been available in Europe and Asia at that time.
3. While I suppose cocaine could be termed "mind-altering" to some extent, it isn't in the same way that LSD is ... i.e. it isn't hallucinatory.
4. Opium, on the other hand, does have soporific and some hallucinatory effects, but as it works as a soporific and anaesthetic (medicinally), then it wouldn't be responsible for fuelling Alexander's massive energy and heroics.

Personally I don't believe that there is any way he could have taken cocaine (unless someone can tell me that I'm wrong about the coca plant) ... but it's quite amusing to speculate, isn't it?

ATB

Sorry, but I'm touched, what a lack of respect... Alexander a drug addict?? Why do people always try to justify his bravery? He was brave because he was brave, easy. Even some historians like Roger Caratini have argued that he was brave because he had a mental disorder and couldn't see the reality that is in the danger. But bravery is not about not recognizing a danger, it is about "conquering your fear" to face that danger, like the quote from the movie.The only drug he ever had was his extreme confidence in himself and his intelligence. Nothing more. Is it that difficult to understand?

Marcus, thanks for the explaination

Kisses, Beatriki

Beatriki wrote:Sorry, but I'm touched, what a lack of respect... Alexander a drug addict?? Why do people always try to justify his bravery? He was brave because he was brave, easy. Even some historians like Roger Caratini have argued that he was brave because he had a mental disorder and couldn't see the reality that is in the danger. But bravery is not about not recognizing a danger, it is about "conquering your fear" to face that danger, like the quote from the movie.The only drug he ever had was his extreme confidence in himself and his intelligence. Nothing more. Is it that difficult to understand?

I agree! I haven’t read the book but I’m guessing that the mental disorder mentioned is bipolar disorder. There was a thread about this a few years ago where I said that I didn’t believe Alexander was BP, but, as a mother of a 16-year-old with an 11-year-long diagnosis, I can understand somewhat how general historians who attempt to psychoanalyze Alexander can misinterpret events to come to this conclusion. However, the recklessness without fear of consequence (that affects a person with a severe case of BP) does NOT fit Alexander because a noticeable lack of judgment must also present itself. Alexander thought on his feet like few people before or after him and I don’t think anyone can say that he misjudged a situation and “couldn’t see the reality that is in the danger” when it came to his personal involvement. In the most life-threatening situations Alexander knew exactly what he was doing, even when he fought the Mali and was almost killed. When he grabbed the ladder and scaled the walls he KNEW that his men would instantly do the same. The fact that the ladders collapsed with the weight of the men is an event that no one could have foreseen. Historians and even his own friends may have interpreted Alexander’s action here as being overly reckless, but that is said with hindsight. Had the ladders not collapsed, the town would still have been taken and the engagement would have been credited as another example of Alexander’s quick thinking.

Having said all that, may I persuade you to write a review of Caratini’s book? Although this site is in English we do belong to the worldwide web and I think it is a shame that we have few reviews of books written in other languages. What do you think?

rocktupac wrote:I have heard of Alexander's alleged use of cocaine, or at least chewing the leaf which is used to produce cocaine, and possibly opium. Cocaine, as it is known in the powdered form, was not "invented" until the mid 19th century. The Greeks, I believe, had known about the altering effects of opium (by chewing the sticky residue emitted from the flower) but I don't think they had been exposed to the coca leaf at this point. Nor does any reference of drug use, excluding alcohol, appear in the primary sources.

Yes, you (and Marcus) are correct that the coca plant wasn’t known in Europe and Asia in Alexander’s time and its use as a drug came into being because of contact with South America. As for Alexander using opium, there was a more recent thread here about his so-called connections to the opium trade. A 1967 Bulletin on Narcotics details the history of opium; presumes that Alexander and his men had access to opiates and suggests that they might have introduced the poppy to India. A United Nations website, Chronology of Opium through History, takes this one stop further by claiming definitively (and without conclusive evidence) that Alexander introduced the poppy to India and Persia in 330 BC.

There’s more since I first posted the above though! A few weeks ago I watched a show on either the History Channel or Discovery Channel called Hooked: Illegal Drugs and how they got that way. This particular episode was titled, Opium, Morphine and Heroin. One of the talking heads said that “Since the battles of Alexander the fruits of the poppy have relieved the sufferings of war.” Hmm, we probably wouldn’t want to argue that to any great degree, but a representative of Narconon International took it further – he detailed the Macedonian use of opium, telling how the soldiers marched all day for a great many miles which caused them considerable pain and discomfort in their feet. So Alexander gave them opium each morning to relieve their suffering and enable them to march further and with ease. Now here we have a portrayal of not just Alexander but the whole army as potential drug addicts! I need hardly mention that there’s no source evidence whatsoever for such a claim, need I? As for Alexander’s personal use of opium; I really doubt it myself. This was a time when tolerance of pain was indicative of a soldier’s bravery and I can’t see Alexander’s pride allowing him to take something to dull pain and make surgical procedures easier if his men didn’t all do the same. There’s little evidence that they did. Compare their situation with the American civil war where ex soldiers became opium addicts in the thousands because of its use in the battlefield.

IMO, just because opiates were known in Alexander’s time it does not follow that they were used to excess or even frequently.

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote:

Beatriki wrote:Sorry, but I'm touched, what a lack of respect... Alexander a drug addict?? Why do people always try to justify his bravery? He was brave because he was brave, easy. Even some historians like Roger Caratini have argued that he was brave because he had a mental disorder and couldn't see the reality that is in the danger. But bravery is not about not recognizing a danger, it is about "conquering your fear" to face that danger, like the quote from the movie.The only drug he ever had was his extreme confidence in himself and his intelligence. Nothing more. Is it that difficult to understand?

I agree! I haven’t read the book but I’m guessing that the mental disorder mentioned is bipolar disorder. There was a thread about this a few years ago where I said that I didn’t believe Alexander was BP, but, as a mother of a 16-year-old with an 11-year-long diagnosis, I can understand somewhat how general historians who attempt to psychoanalyze Alexander can misinterpret events to come to this conclusion. However, the recklessness without fear of consequence (that affects a person with a severe case of BP) does NOT fit Alexander because a noticeable lack of judgment must also present itself. Alexander thought on his feet like few people before or after him and I don’t think anyone can say that he misjudged a situation and “couldn’t see the reality that is in the danger” when it came to his personal involvement. In the most life-threatening situations Alexander knew exactly what he was doing, even when he fought the Mali and was almost killed. When he grabbed the ladder and scaled the walls he KNEW that his men would instantly do the same. The fact that the ladders collapsed with the weight of the men is an event that no one could have foreseen. Historians and even his own friends may have interpreted Alexander’s action here as being overly reckless, but that is said with hindsight. Had the ladders not collapsed, the town would still have been taken and the engagement would have been credited as another example of Alexander’s quick thinking.

Having said all that, may I persuade you to write a review of Caratini’s book? Although this site is in English we do belong to the worldwide web and I think it is a shame that we have few reviews of books written in other languages. What do you think?

It would be an honor to write that review, Amyntoros, thanks for asking me But I'll do it in English, with translations from my book which is in Spanish. Oh, and what about writing a "long review" for this forum too, so that we all can argue the controversial aspects on the book? Since most of you haven't read it, I think it would be a great idea

As for the "mental disorder", Caratini says that his breaking up with reality indicates a typical psychotic personality and that thousand examples can be given: unimportant ones (like the characteristics of his personality), or dramatic ones (serious psychotic crises, after which the normal psychological course of the individual recovers)...

Kisses, Beatriki

As for the "mental disorder", Caratini says that his breaking up with reality indicates a typical psychotic personality and that thousand examples can be given: unimportant ones (like the characteristics of his personality), or dramatic ones (serious psychotic crises, after which the normal psychological course of the individual recovers)...

Hello Beatriki,

I am also very interested in psychologicall interpretations of the man difficult as it may be, to profile a man who lived thousands of years ago and whose life has come to us, present day, quite disfigured and incomplete.

Yet, I think that we can say that there were moments when Alexander did lose his mind on more than one occasion. Cleitus- was one such occasion- obviously, when he temporarily lost his mind- killing a man in cold blood- but even this occasion cannot be dissected completely well- we cannot conclude anything because we don't know the original veridictal account to exclude all doubt. I mean that there is a slim chance that he threw the javelin not actually meaning to kill him. I aggree that it is slim but well...(he hit the mark even legless drunk- damn good shot if you ask me)

I have read the Caratini book and found the book to have numerous psychological analysis- although historically I found the book to be quite mainstream.

Best regards,
Dean

Beatriki wrote: It would be an honor to write that review, Amyntoros, thanks for asking me But I'll do it in English, with translations from my book which is in Spanish.

Wonderful, Beatriki – and you gave the answer I hoped for in response to my poorly phrased sentence. As this is an English language site, any reviews would need to be written in English. What I should have said is “it is a shame that we have few reviews of books which are written in other languages.” Don’t send a review for the main site to me though – please send it instead to Marcus or Sikander.

Oh, and what about writing a "long review" for this forum too, so that we all can argue the controversial aspects on the book? Since most of you haven't read it, I think it would be a great idea

Oh, definitely! After reading the quote from the book I am most curious to know more! When you are ready do, please, start a new thread on this topic. In the thread I’d also love to know more about the author, if possible. Does he have a background in psychology? He appears to have written a good number of books on various historical persons so I take it he doesn’t specialize in the study of Alexander, but are his books very popular in Spain? And are they also published in other Spanish speaking countries such as those in South America? Is he widely considered to be very knowledgeable of his subjects or is he known to be a sensationalist writer, etc.? His comments on Alexander (above) do seem more suitable for the National Enquirer rather than the National Geographic, don’t you think?

Looking forward to the thread . . .

Best regards,

By Zeus, I don't think Alexander was a drug addict in the least bit. I just want to make that distinction before things get out of hand I only think it's interesting to imagine some type of limited drug use to either dull pain or as fuel for some of Alexander's super-human tasks. I totally believe he was motivated by honor, bravery, and courage.

rocktupac wrote:By Zeus, I don't think Alexander was a drug addict in the least bit. I just want to make that distinction before things get out of hand I only think it's interesting to imagine some type of limited drug use to either dull pain or as fuel for some of Alexander's super-human tasks. I totally believe he was motivated by honor, bravery, and courage.

I never said you think that, rocktupac, I was refering to those that have spread that rumor, as you said you read it somewhere. Excuse me for not having expressed it well

dean wrote:I have read the Caratini book and found the book to have numerous psychological analysis- although historically I found the book to be quite mainstream.

Yes, I agree. He is the typical, prejudiced modern historian, but I found his book quite interesting (except for the psychological analysis which is REALLY exaggerated!! - and I'll explain this later on Caratini's thread). He gives complicate descriptions without boring (not like Hammond), which happens mostly when reading about battles, and makes it clear he knows the topic completely. In the beggining of the book he talks a little bit about the early Macedonian history, the foundation of the Argead dinasty and so on, which is something difficult to find. He also wrote introductory essays about Greece, its culture and its wars with the Persians: it is always good to know what happened before Alexander lived...

amyntoros wrote:Oh, definitely! After reading the quote from the book I am most curious to know more! When you are ready do, please, start a new thread on this topic. In the thread I’d also love to know more about the author, if possible. Does he have a background in psychology? He appears to have written a good number of books on various historical persons so I take it he doesn’t specialize in the study of Alexander, but are his books very popular in Spain? And are they also published in other Spanish speaking countries such as those in South America? Is he widely considered to be very knowledgeable of his subjects or is he known to be a sensationalist writer, etc.? His comments on Alexander (above) do seem more suitable for the National Enquirer rather than the National Geographic, don’t you think? Wink

Yes, he has a background in psychology: in fact, he was a psychoanalyst himself, he had his own office but closed it to become a writer, a historian and also, a philosopher. He wrote biographies about Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and others, but I find interesting that he wrote about those two, who are deeply related to Alexander...

About his popularity in Spain... well, his books are not popular, at least not in the sense of famous, but I can say that nowadays it is the only decent biography one can find in the library. Most of the books that are written about Alexander here are a mere introduction to him. When the movie was on theatres, you could find every possible book, essay or novel you wanted, but now it is really difficult, with the exception of the infamous Manfredi. I had to request one book by Robin Lane Fox, which was to be delivered today, but since they have to buy it from England, it seems I will have to wait a couple of days... You really have to have patience!!!

I think that Caratini's thread will be really interesting, with many things to discuss. I will work about it and post it as soon as I can

Kisses, Beatriki

Alexanders Drug is totaly relevent to today its called Adrenalin and once the Adrenalin with a mixture of testosterone comes into play would explain Alexanders Bravery and some time rash behavior. I would say an adrenalin rush is as mind bending and driving as any of the manufactured Opiates and mind bending drugs we have today.

Today we have steroids etc all the things that give athleste etc the ability to cheat. I would say the adreenalin and testosterone the natural stimulants of the male species I guess was all Alexander needed. Its been mentioned that Glory and battle were Alexanders Mistress and excuse the pun would gamble a battle or seige was more orgasmic to Alexander than us mere heathen men would get from sex.

Real adrenalin rushes can indeed help mortal men ignore pain to a degree and make a person achieve a lot more than not. Although I would argue the Greeks with all there medical knowledge knew of Opiate based pain killers lets face it some of them Greeks and Macedonians would need something stronger than un diluted wine. I reckon there was no strong bozze like the Whiskies John Wayne would drink before some doctore cut out bullets.

Alas limited use of Opiates at that time would have had some side effects. Those Greeks knew about those toxic potions for poisoning.

Kenny

I apologize Beatriki, I didn't mean anything in my response. I was kind of joking around But thanks