Personal how? I'm not sure how to interpret the question considering that my argument is focused on Ptolemy's failure to cremate Alexander - a decision which can only have been politically motivated.athenas owl wrote:Isn't it possible that Ptolemy's motives were BOTH personal and political?
I will get back to you on this...I have to find the sources, etc. Though who sees it as a "failure"? A choice more likely, to my mind...if we are to use the example of Hephaistion's pyre, and follow the path that ATG himself did in following the old ways for his friend's burial..wouldn't Alexander have wanted to buried with Hephaistion? Like Achilles and Patroclus...and wouldn't that be in Babylon then? Unless someone somehow managed to scrape up some remnants of Hephaistion from his burning..and those were saved to be buried with ATG...if we are to follow ATG's own precedent here in the funeral rites for Hephaistion as an indication of his own wishes for his final disposal. Particularily as ATG didn't have a whole lot of time after the funeral of Hephasition to change his tack...a month or so...amyntoros wrote:Personal how? I'm not sure how to interpret the question considering that my argument is focused on Ptolemy's failure to cremate Alexander - a decision which can only have been politically motivated.athenas owl wrote:Isn't it possible that Ptolemy's motives were BOTH personal and political?
Best regards,
And, as I have argued "the Egyptian context" was politically beneficial for Ptolemy who was effectively ruling Egypt at the time even if he was not to declare himself Pharaoh until much later. (As was the case with the other diadochi who waited a substantial period before proclaiming themselves kings.)Taphoi wrote:The decision not to cremate has a clear cultural explanation in the Egyptian context.
And that same source, Diodorus (18.28.2-6) also says that "He (Ptolemy) decided for the present not to send it to Ammon, but to entomb it in the city that had been founded by Alexander himself …" a statement that is historically incorrect according to your own research and arguments. Then Diodorus goes on to say that "Entombing him in this and honouring him with sacrifices such as are paid to demigods and with magnificent games, he won fair requital not only from men but also from the gods. For men, because of his graciousness and nobility of heart, came together eagerly from all sides to Alexandria and gladly enrolled for the campaign, although the army of the kings was about to fight against that of Ptolemy ; and, even though the risks were manifest and great, yet all of them willingly took upon themselves at their personal risk the preservation of Ptolemy's safety." So, again, taking the body was a politically astute move for Ptolemy ...The only ancient source evidence states that Ptolemy took the corpse to Egypt to fulfil Alexander's express wish and in order that Alexander could be assured of being worshipped as a god.
See Paralus' comments about power and legitimacy and the words of Diodorus above. Also, it would be impossible to argue that none of the other Diadochi would ever have moved against Ptolemy – or he against them - if he had not taken Alexander's body. Wars existed for decades; alliances were forged and broken; armies changed allegiance. With or without Alexander's body, Ptolemy wasn't "Switzerland."Hijacking the corpse was illegal and dangerous. It is the opposite of what a politically cunning individual would have done.
Calling it crazy is a matter of opinion and interpretation. It turned about to be one of the wisest moves Ptolemy made and was certainly to his advantage according, again, to Diodorus above, and subsequent events in history.We happen to know that of all Alexander's commanders Ptolemy is most likely to have felt honour-bound to fulfil Alexander's wishes, because Alexander had personally saved his life in India (and they may well have been half-brothers). I cannot see so sensible and clever a commander as Ptolemy doing anything so crazy without a strong personal motivation.
To take political advantage of the corpse later, Ptolemy had to first secure possession of it.Nevertheless, Ptolemy was not above taking political advantage of his possession of the corpse later, after the danger from Perdiccas had been repulsed and especially if it could be done without betraying Alexander's wishes.
Except that, if the corpse had been cremated at Siwa according to Macedonian custom then there would be no reason for a naval expedition. No other diadochi would have gained anything by desecrating the tomb of Alexander and stealing his bones and ashes, especially if it were common knowledge that Alexander wished to be buried there. Imagine the response of the army if one of them were to have done so. First there would have been horror at the act and then probably disbelief as in "those bones could belong to anyone." Such a hubristic act would have benefited no one in their battles for power so there's no reason why Ptolemy shouldn't have buried Alexander at Siwah except for the problem of an intact corpse. That mummified body, had it been buried at Siwah, just might have given justification for someone to steal it and cremate it, according to Macedonian custom, and probably in Macedonia. I'll say it over and over again - keeping the body mummified and intact benefited Ptolemy alone in both his rule over the Egyptians and his future plans. (And being the supposed half brother of Alexander would not have served him at all if Alexander’s body had been cremated.)Lucian, Holkias, Arrian and others only mention Egypt (or sometimes Alexandria and Memphis) as the destination of the corpse. The Ammon quote may only be coming via Cleitarchus and remains ambiguous, although it is true that the most likely interpretation would be Siwa. However, Ptolemy could not have maintained an army at Siwa to repulse a surprise attack during a time of civil war. It would have been possible for a naval expedition to attack Siwa in force, snatch the body and sail away before Ptolemy could have deployed an army against it.
There was political tension between all the Diadochi, at all times, and I don’t see that "appeasing Olympias" means disloyalty to Alexander. It is totally understandable that she (and a great many other Macedonians) would have wanted Alexander's body returned to Aegae and buried with all the other kings. And there wasn’t much evidence of any of the Diadochi attempting to appease Olympias in any other matters - it was more a question of using her to their best advantage. Anyway, the passage from Aelian can be interpreted as Olympias having regrets that Alexander remained unburied for a year or two whilst the Macedonians prepared his funeral cortege.PS. Aelian VH 13.30 has Olympias criticising Alexander for seeking "to reach heaven" with the result that his body remained uninterred, so we can see that she is likely to have been outspoken in her insistence that Alexander's body should be brought to Aegae. The political tension between those who remained loyal to Alexander and those who saw the merits of appeasing Olympias, still very much among the living, is palpable.
When Alexander's mother Olympias learned that her son lay unburied for a long time, she groaned deeply and cried in a high-pitched voice: "My child," she said, 'you wanted to reach heaven and made it your aim, but now you do not enjoy even what are surely common rights shared by all men, the right to earth and to burial." Thus she lamented her own fate and criticised her son's arrogance.
Becoming a Divine Hero was not available to Hephaistion in Egyptian belief either, but the oracle was considered by the Greeks to belong to Zeus-Ammon, and the priests there had no problem declaring Hephaistion a Hero. Being declared a Hero as such is a part of Greek religious beliefs, not Egyptian. The request to Zeus-Ammon contradicts any potential claim that Alexander thought he himself could attain divinity only by being honored as Pharoah and I don’t understand your statement about the "overriding imperative" for Alexander’s funeral arrangements. Are you saying that the need to see Hephaistion in the afterlife was not of importance to Alexander?Divinity was not available to Hephaistion in Egypt, as Alexander's enquiry to the Oracle at Siwa had confirmed (Arrian, Anabasis 7.14.7), but Pharaohs were automatically deified: in fact they were incarnations of Horus and sons of Ammon-Re. In the case of Hephaistion's funeral arrangements the overriding imperative for Alexander was to complete the parallel with the Achilles-Patroclus partnership by recreating yet outdoing the funeral of Patroclus in the Iliad.” Are you saying that seeing Hephaistion in the afterlife
As Amyntoros has so eloquently stated: he had to get hold of the corpse first.Taphoi wrote:We happen to know that of all Alexander's commanders Ptolemy is most likely to have felt honour-bound to fulfil Alexander's wishes, because Alexander had personally saved his life in India (and they may well have been half-brothers). I cannot see so sensible and clever a commander as Ptolemy doing anything so crazy without a strong personal motivation. Nevertheless, Ptolemy was not above taking political advantage of his possession of the corpse later, after the danger from Perdiccas had been repulsed and especially if it could be done without betraying Alexander's wishes.
However, by pre-arrangement with Ptolemy, Arrhidaeus led the procession south towards Egypt when it reached the vicinity of Damascus, instead of north towards Macedon. Perdiccas received the news a week or so later and he immediately sent a contingent of cavalry under his lieutenants Attalus and Polemon in hot pursuit. They may have overtaken the sluggish catafalque, but Ptolemy had come north with an army to escort it, so the Regent's men were repulsed. The furious Perdiccas attacked Egypt with the Grand Army in the Spring of 321BC. However, he failed twice to force the crossing of the Nile with tremendous losses among his own troops.
Taphoi wrote: The modern fiction that he stole the body to enhance his prestige fails to explain why the mere possession of a corpse should be worth picking a quarrel with the commander of the most powerful army that had ever existed.
The fall out at Babylon had removed the immediate competition to Perdiccas’ ambitions. He’d “retired” Craterus to Macedon as an ill-defined European co-regent and babysitter for the “kings”. And he’d cancelled Alexander’s plans for further expansion.Taphoi wrote: Nevertheless, Perdiccas' ambitions to achieve the throne could only be opposed by armed force in the end. Stealing Alexander's corpse was an insult to him, which was very likely to bring the Grand Army down upon the perpetrator as indeed happened.
I don’t think so. The delay in moving the body from Babylon was because nobody wished to cremate Alexander there. Perdiccas and presumably Olympias wished him to be brought to Aegae. It is therefore more likely that Olympias was criticising the fact that Alexander remained uncremated (therefore in her terms not properly buried) in Egypt, which was indeed due to his wish to become divine.amyntoros wrote:The passage from Aelian can be interpreted as Olympias having regrets that Alexander remained unburied for a year or two whilst the Macedonians prepared his funeral cortege.
Lucian is a good ancient historian: there is evidence that he knew several primary sources on Alexander. I know that we can rely on your integrity not to fall into the trap of labelling any source that contradicts your opinions as “not credible”.amyntoros wrote:The criticism of Alexander in wanting to be a god is a familiar motif in later sources; however, not one credible source implies that Alexander's road to becoming a god was to be interred in Egypt as Pharaoh.
No. On these two points my position is backed by all the ancient source evidence, not just the Liber de Morte. All sources that comment on the matter say that Ptolemy was believed to be Alexander’s half-brother. All ancient sources that comment on the matter say he was loyal to Alexander and sought to fulfil the king’s last wish to have his corpse taken to Egypt.Paralus wrote:Seemingly – and I have not read your book – you’re view of Ptolemy is that of the loyal friend of Alexander and therefore “honour-bound” to see that his wishes are fulfilled. This, I would assume, is further fuelled by your belief that the two were “putatively” brothers – essentially that of the faithful custodian of the dead king’s wishes and memory. Much of this, I assume, would be based on the Liber de Morte
I have not said the theft of the corpse was the sole reason, but I do agree with Arrian in saying that it was the decisive reason:Paralus wrote:Treating the diversion of Alexander’s corpse in isolation and, a fortiori, as the sole reason for Perdiccas’ attack on Egypt ignores the military, political and dynastic manoeuvrings that resulted in this first civil war.
Best wishes,Arrian, Events after Alexander wrote:The partisans of Perdiccas, Attalus and Polemon, sent out by him to prevent the departure, returned without succeeding and told him that Arrhidaeus had deliberately given the body of Alexander to Ptolemy and was carrying it to Egypt. Then, even more, he wanted to march to Egypt in order to take away the rule from Ptolemy and put a new man in his place (one of his friends) and retrieve the body of Alexander. With this intention he arrived in Cilicia with the army
Except that to become divine according to his own Macedonian beliefs, Alexander needed to be cremated. I’ve yet to be convinced that Alexander on his deathbed gave up everything he formerly believed and embraced Eygptian religion as the only way to achieve apotheosis.Taphoi wrote: It is therefore more likely that Olympias was criticising the fact that Alexander remained uncremated (therefore in her terms not properly buried) in Egypt, which was indeed due to his wish to become divine.
Nice one, Andrew!Lucian is a good ancient historian: there is evidence that he knew several primary sources on Alexander. I know that we can rely on your integrity not to fall into the trap of labelling any source that contradicts your opinions as "not credible".
I shall rebut anyway … Of course there's evidence that he knew primary sources, but the work is undeniably fictional. Any good writer of historical fiction will get their facts straight, but any intimate conversations written are undeniably the author's invention. Lucian knew that Ptolemy had taken Alexander's body to Egypt, but he cannot have been party to any words that Alexander and Ptolemy exchanged. For further example, look at an earlier part of the dialogueDo you consider the above to be undeniably historical fact, or Lucian’s opinion on Alexander's motives, put into words from Alexander's mouth?Alexander
I knew quite well myself, father, that I was the son of Philip, the son of Amyntas, but I accepted the oracle, because I thought it useful for my purposes.
Philip
What! Useful to allow yourself to be cheated by the prophets?
Alexander
Not that, but the barbarians were terrified of me, and nobody resisted me any more; they thought they were fighting against a god, so that I conquered them the more easily.
All ancient sources? I don't see it …No. On these two points my position is backed by all the ancient source evidence, not just the Liber de Morte. All sources that comment on the matter say that Ptolemy was believed to be Alexander’s half-brother. All ancient sources that comment on the matter say he was loyal to Alexander and sought to fulfil the king’s last wish to have his corpse taken to Egypt.
It seems that you are interpreting the above to mean that because Perdiccas didn't have consideration for Alexander's body and his last wishes then Ptolemy's sole reason for the abduction was to "to fulfil the king’s last wish to have his corpse taken to Egypt." That isn't what ALL the sources say.Quintus Curtius X. 10. 20 But Ptolemy, under whose control Egypt had come, transported the king’s body to Memphis, and from there a few years later to Alexandria where every honour was paid to his memory and his name.
Aelian Book 12.64 On hearing this they began to quarrel seriously, each man wishing to carry off the prize to his own kingdom, so as to have a relic guaranteeing safety and permanence for his realm. But Ptolemy, if we are to believe the story, stole the body and hurriedly made off with it to Alexandria in Egypt. The other Macedonians did nothing, whereas Perdiccas tried to give chase. He was no so much interested in consideration for Alexander and due respect for his body as fired and incited by Artistander’s prediction.
Strabo Bk. XVII. Ch. I.8. A part belonging to the palaces consists of that called Sema, an enclosure, which contained the tombs of the kings and that of Alexander (the Great). For Ptolemy the son of Lagus took away the body of Alexander from Perdiccas, as he was conveying it down from Babylon; for Perdiccas had turned out of his road towards Egypt, incited by ambition and a desire of making himself master of the country.
Pausanias 1.6.3 [Attica] He crossed over to Egypt in person, and killed Cleomenes, whom Alexander had appointed satrap of that country, considering him a friend of Perdiccas, and therefore not faithful to himself; and the Macedonians who had been entrusted with the task of carrying the corpse of Alexander to Aegae, he persuaded to hand it over to him. And he proceeded to bury it with Macedonian rites in Memphis, but, knowing that Perdiccas would make war, he kept Egypt garrisoned.
Hmmm, Arrian says "even more" which doesn’t mean the only reason, as in your earlier statement that :-Taphoi wrote:I have not said the theft of the corpse was the sole reason, but I do agree with Arrian in saying that it was the decisive reason:Paralus wrote:Treating the diversion of Alexander’s corpse in isolation and, a fortiori, as the sole reason for Perdiccas’ attack on Egypt ignores the military, political and dynastic manoeuvrings that resulted in this first civil war.
Arrian, Events after Alexander wrote:The partisans of Perdiccas, Attalus and Polemon, sent out by him to prevent the departure, returned without succeeding and told him that Arrhidaeus had deliberately given the body of Alexander to Ptolemy and was carrying it to Egypt. Then, even more, he wanted to march to Egypt in order to take away the rule from Ptolemy and put a new man in his place (one of his friends) and retrieve the body of Alexander. With this intention he arrived in Cilicia with the army
Ptolemy had already allied with Antigonos, Antipater and Craterus against Perdiccas and the quarrel was under way before the abduction of the body. Heckel in Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great says that the alliance was formed because they had received news that Perdiccas intended to attack Macedonia. Then, after the abduction of Alexander's body :-.. the diversion of the corpse nearly cost Ptolemy his life. The modern fiction that he stole the body to enhance his prestige fails to explain why the mere possession of a corpse should be worth picking a quarrel with the commander of the most powerful army that had ever existed.
Best regards,We can only assume, as Perdiccas himself did, that there had been collusion with Ptolemy and the satrap of Babylon, Archon; it was symptomatic of widespread disaffection among the officials of the empire. Word came to Perdiccas that Arrhidaeus had turned southward and was making for Egypt. A contingent sent out by the sons of Andromenes, sent out to retrieve Alexander’s body proved inadequate, for Ptolemy had marched out in full force to meet Arrhidaeus’ procession and escort it to Egypt. News of the "body-snatching" emphasized the need to secure Asia first. Perdiccas had other grievances against Ptolemy: his execution of the hyparch Cleomenes and his expansionist war against Cyrene. Making what arrangements he felt necessary for the security of Asia Minor, Perdiccas began his assault on Egypt, where Ptolemy had spent the two years after the settlement of Babylon fortifying his satrapy and winning the loyalty of his followers. (My italics)
I think it was clear that I meant, all ancient sources that comment on the matter of Ptolemy's motives say he was loyal to Alexander and sought to fulfil the king’s last wish to have his corpse taken to Egypt. The sources you quote only tell us what Ptolemy did, not why he did it.amyntoros wrote:All ancient sources? I don't see it …
Stretching credibility, Andrew. Really s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g it. As did Lucian, by the way. The blood not ichor quote is of one or two isolated statments in a sea of contrary ones. It was supposed to be flattery which Alexander made light of; however Lucian has Philip say to Alexander "For you were supposed to be a god, and any time you were wounded and seen being carried out of the fighting on a litter, streaming with blood and groaning from your wound, the onlookers were amused to see how Ammon was being shown up as an imposter whose forecasts were false, and his prophets as mere flatterers. Who wouldn’t have been amused to see the son of Zeus fainting and calling for the assistance of the doctors?"Taphoi wrote:I have no problem with your Lucian quote. It represents a very judicious interpretation of what some of the primary sources said. There is a tradition that Alexander sometimes made light of the divinity accorded him by his status as Pharaoh, e.g. the blood not ichor anecdote. Lucian is likely to be using a primary source for the matter of Ptolemy's promise to Alexander: Onesicritus, Ptolemy, Nearchus, Medius and Eumenes as a minimum were likely to have be eyewitnesses. Perhaps Holkias too. Lucian's fictional dialogue is a device for discussing the real details of the history.
I need to ask from which source you are getting the “Arrian, Events After Alexander quote” ? Your version reads:I fear it is pointless to quote a modern historian, be he everso eminent, to refute Arrian!
My version of Photius reads:The partisans of Perdiccas, Attalus and Polemon, sent out by him to prevent the departure, returned without succeeding and told him that Arrhidaeus had deliberately given the body of Alexander to Ptolemy and was carrying it to Egypt. Then, even more, he wanted to march to Egypt in order to take away the rule from Ptolemy and put a new man in his place (one of his friends) and retrieve the body of Alexander. With this intention he arrived in Cilicia with the army
Arrhidaeus, who kept the body of Alexander with him, contrary to the wish of Perdiccas, took it from Babylon by way of Damascus to Ptolemy the son of Lagus in Egypt; and though often hindered on his journey by Polemon, a friend of Perdiccas, nevertheless succeeded in carrying out his intention.
You have not written so; it is your thundering silence about, or insistent glossing over of, the context of wider concomitant events in which the corpse diversion is carried out that proclaims it. Indeed, even when you do mention it askance, “with sympathy”, you move directly to claim that it was the stealing of the corpse which is the cuase for the attack by Perdiccas.Taphoi wrote:I have not said the theft of the corpse was the sole reason…Paralus wrote:Treating the diversion of Alexander’s corpse in isolation and, a fortiori, as the sole reason for Perdiccas’ attack on Egypt ignores the military, political and dynastic manoeuvrings that resulted in this first civil war.
And by armed force, brought to bear by a coalition of marshals as mentioned, those ambitions were thwarted and Ptolemy wound up with the corpseTaphoi wrote:The forestalling Perdiccas theory is quite a different point of view and I have more sympathy with it. Nevertheless, Perdiccas' ambitions to achieve the throne could only be opposed by armed force in the end. Stealing Alexander's corpse was an insult to him, which was very likely to bring the Grand Army down upon the perpetrator as indeed happened.
At the time Perdiccas had a war on two fronts. Eumenes and Neoptolemos were already deputed to secure the northern front. Perdiccas would see to Egypt. What Arrian is saying is that he had already decided on war and that news of the theft made him more determined on that course.Taphoi wrote: …but I do agree with Arrian in saying that it was the decisive reason.
amyntoros wrote:The blood not ichor quote is of one or two isolated statments in a sea of contrary ones.
Plutarch, Alexander 28.3 wrote:It is clear that Alexander himself was not foolishly affected or puffed up by the belief in his divinity, but used it for the subjugation of others.
Arrian, Anabasis 7.29.3 wrote:Again even Alexander’s practice of referring his own birth to a god was not in my opinion a grave fault on his part; and perhaps it was no more than an expedient to make him impressive to his subjects.
Curtius 4.7.8 wrote:But Alexander was nevertheless goaded by an overwhelming desire to visit the temple of Jupiter - dissatisfied with elevation on the mortal level, he either considered, or wanted others to believe, that Jupiter was his ancestor.
Photius is not the only source of fragments of Arrian's Events after Alexander. My quote is from one of several palimpsests of sections of the work. Jacoby labels it 10A.amyntoros wrote:I need to ask from which source you are getting the “Arrian, Events After Alexander" quote?
Interesting. I must try and contact Jona Lendering and find out from whence he obtained his translation, for they are very different.Taphoi wrote:[Photius is not the only source of fragments of Arrian's Events after Alexander. My quote is from one of several palimpsests of sections of the work. Jacoby labels it 10A.
To recap: you said the following excerpt from Lucian is historically based, whereas I said Lucian was writing with knowledge of what had happened to Alexander’s corpse and could not have been aware of any conversation between Ptolemy and Alexander.In support of my claim that a fictional element is present in Lucian I quoted a further excerpt wherein the deceased Alexander said he never believed he was a god. I wrote that this piece was a reflection of Lucian’s opinion. You disagreed, saying:Lucian - Dialogues of the Dead 13 wrote:Alexander (dead): I've been lying in Babylon for three days now, but my guardsman Ptolemy promises that, whenever he gets a respite from present disturbances, he'll take me away to Egypt and bury me there, so that I may become one of the gods of the Egyptians.
Today you’ve given me quotes from Plutarch, Curtius and Arrian in support of the excerpt being historically accurate rather than Lucian’s opinion. I must say here that Plutarch’s work is full of his expressed opinions on Alexander, given as if fact; Curtius is in doubt whether Alexander considered Zeus to be his ancestor or whether he just wanted others to believe it; and Arrian uses the word “perhaps”. All are expressions of the authors' own thoughts. Hmmm …Taphoi wrote:Lucian is a good ancient historian: there is evidence that he knew several primary sources on Alexander. I know that we can rely on your integrity not to fall into the trap of labelling any source that contradicts your opinions as “not credible”.