pothos.org

athenas owl wrote:Find me one <a narrative> that is not revisionist!

I was thinking about it last night, and tried to imagine if the only surviving texts a couple thousand years on, on the Presidency of Bill Clinton, were those by Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh..and Clinton's own biography. Or worse yet, editorialised extracts of these texts, written centuries after the fact, ala, Justin (trying to tie in the topic

<snip>

Of course today information travels at the speed of light across the globe and there are billions more people, but I have lived long enough to see the narrative of an event change or at least try to be changed as it unfolds, or just days, weeks years after. An event in one's own lifetime can be seen through so many different eyes and the actual event is lost in the propaganda and wishful thinking, the Vietnam and current Iraq war come to mind. Somehow, I don' think that part of human nature has changed at all.

I was meaning to respond to your previous post but I’ve put that on ice to answer this one. I understand what you are saying, but the above is the reason why we practice historiography as well as simply “learning” history. Although we do the best we can with the extant evidence on Alexander, you seem to be indicating in various posts that there really is no point. Am I wrong? As well as the above you’ve asked in this thread, “How much of this is rewriting history?” You “don’t take any <my italics> of the sources as a source of truth” on Alexander’s death. You’ve said, “We assume, but we are reading sources that wrote from primary sources that had their own axes to grind and their own narrow focus.” And that you “don't have any picture, mentally of Alexander himself. He is too remote, too used as a springboard for the views and politics of others for me.”

Most people do have a mental picture of Alexander and they’ve created that image from the sources. Debate on Pothos, using the same sources, may question or reinforce one’s image of the man. If we were to view those sources always as too distant, too revisionist to have any real meaning, then what would we have left to discuss? The extant sources are all we have – all we can use to support or contest a point of view. We can analyze them and the excerpts therein and find the authors’ axes to grind and their own narrow focus – that’s where historiography comes into play (and one of the reasons I started this thread on Justin) – but if they are to be dismissed out of hand for the above reason then I wonder about the purpose of discussion. If none of the sources on Alexander’s death are “a source of truth” then why should we debate his death? And if Alexander is too remote, too used as a springboard for the views and politics of others for you, then what do you hope to find out about him on Pothos? Please understand that I’m asking these questions with the greatest of respect and am not issuing a challenge but am trying to better find out “where you are coming from” and how I should answer your posts on historical matters. For instance, should I quote sources?

With best regards,

I just finished listening to an old NPR interview with Cartledge and Strauss...that "dumb brute" comment still kinks my neck... Though it was a nice half hour!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4187516

If anyone wants it!

You make good points, Amyntoros and, no I don't think that one should discard the sources, but pull them out of their narrow focus (what went on in the empire after ATG's death that did not center on the Diodachi struggle, for example, where was Peucestas for all those years between losing his satrpy and Antigonus dying). I came back to this thread because either Cartledge or Strauss, I can't remember which said that only one wife, Apame, was kept after ATG's death.

Again, with the marriages..I know. I use it as the recurrent example because it is taken as gospel that this is so, when even the term "most of them" does not say this. Most? Even if true, and I have no doubt that a lot of Persian girls found themselves bereft of their Macedonian husbands quite soon..is that "most" 99% or 51%? Would Craterus have set aside Amastris if Antipater had not his bevy of daughters? Craterus had kept her for a year and half after ATG died. It's just something to think about. How serious was the anti-Persian sentiment. I can understand not wanting to share power, but the adoption of eastern styles of clothing wasn't exclusive to ATG. Was the anti-Persian sentiment exaggerated in retropsect due to the circumstances with Antipater now a power player? "Those Persians, I never liked them anyway!!!" I'm talking here about the elite, not the rank and file soldiers, which is something else.

As I've said before, we do not know that all but one was dumped..shame on Cartledge for that, I have given a few examples of likely grooms who would have had every reason to keep their Persian brides, if indeed they were grooms (Peucestas I can not believe was not one of the grooms). It become part of the "narrative" without being questioned.

Cartledge also mentions that a lot of what Alexander did in his "orientalising" was later practiced by the Diodachi themselves. The new "Macedonians" were Persians, Egyptians, etc. (He said it, not me!) Ptolemy in his pharonic garb, the triumph of oriental kingship in Europe through the Byzantines. It's just a confusing picture to me to take the sources completely at their word when judged against the visual arts and later historical behaviour..

Or previous behaviour. Didn't Alexander I marry his own sister off to Bubares, a Persian nobleman? At least according to Herodotus. Persians were in and out of Macedonia for decades, prior to the invasion. Was it the Greeks rather than the Macedonians who would have seen the Persians as barbarians, or at least more so...than the Macedonians who at one point were quite cozy with the Persians (willingly or not).

Maybe I think in a different direction, but as I mentioned in the previous post...imagine you are a Macedonian soldier, trudging through the deep snow in the Hindu Kush. Your defiantly anti-Persian bare legs and exposed (did they wear underpants?) jewels freezing, frostbitten and completely miserable...were they so stubborn that a pair of trousers would have been anathema them? Maybe the first time, coming up from Kandahar, but by the first crossing into Bactria, certainly by the second, you'd hope they had a clue! BY thus time, "Persians" had been serving in the army for a number of years. Were the Macedonains that blinkered?

Maybe I had too much anthropolgy in college...or spent winters in freezing conditions looking longingly at the seal skin coats of the Native Alaskans, jealous that by law I could not own one.

The sources are very, very important and should not be discarded. It is not pointless to use them. It has just occurred to me lately that the anti-Persian sentiment, while certainly existing in ATG's lifetime, might have been a bit back-filled for the sake of alliainces with the more important Antipater in the aftermath. Would Craterus have parted with his Persian bride under different circumstances? Did the alliance with Antipater, who he was originally on his way to replace, change Craterus' own plans?

The sources are all we have, sort of, but certainly I am not the first to read bewteen the lines, I'm just reading those invisible in between's a bit differently. Or asking different questions anyway. Please don't make me drink hemlock.

As for the sources on ATG's death. I am afraid that I can blame RLF for that. I do take as "fact" that it took 12 days for him to die. It is the two variant strains of the story, 1) "it's Alexander's fault, he drank himself to death, nothing to see here folks, move along" and 2) " Someone poisoned him and his name is Cassander!" (hyperbole!)....both of these views were propagandised to the point that who the hell really knows? That was the point I was making, not very well I realise. Like the death of Callisthenes, how many ways did he die?

Meh...I have to come back this when I don't drone on. Short coherent posts from now on!

athenas owl wrote:BTW, if you don't know who Coulter or Limbaugh are...you are blessed. Though now that I think about it, that narrative flow began the day Clinton took office, and the alternate narratives continue till today.)

Only too well I'm afraid. Check your PM. There's somnething there to give you a giggle....

athenas owl wrote:Demonthenes (reading bits of him and Aeschines is somewhat akin to watching the old shouting matches on CNN).

Yes it pays to know the partisan views of one's source, especially when using that source as a character witness.

athenas owl wrote: Meh...I have to come back this when I don't drone on. Short coherent posts from now on!

Ah, but no one could accuse me of economy of expression, so I’ll try and answer only a couple of salient points lest I turn my response into an essay.

Was the anti-Persian sentiment exaggerated in retropsect due to the circumstances with Antipater now a power player? "Those Persians, I never liked them anyway!!!" I'm talking here about the elite, not the rank and file soldiers, which is something else.

One day (if I ever finish Pausanias) it might be worth trawling through the sources to gather together exactly what is said about anti-Persian sentiment and whether it is exaggerated by ancient authors. My general impression (from memory) is that it is not limited to the elite and there is little focus upon them in particular. This could mean then that the men of the rank and file were the ones with the greatest objections – which does make sense. One does not usually object to something if you benefit from it, and those close to Alexander certainly increased their wealth; gained in rank; and when not actively fighting they enjoyed a more luxurious lifestyle. Also, they were in a position to understand why Alexander adopted Persian ways and afforded some Persian nobles apparent social standing in his court and nominal positions in his army. For instance, those close to Alexander would have understood that many of the Persians were “hostages” for the good behavior of their families. I see no evidence that any of the companions felt that their own positions were in danger of being usurped by the foreigners. Follow the trail of Alexander’s campaign and it is apparent that the Macedonian generals alone continue to lead the army no matter how many Persians, Bactrians, Sogdians, etc. were introduced into the court. And Alexander did well by his officers. They were far richer than they ever could have dreamed back in Macedonia. How much gold is said to have been found in Eumenes burnt tent? More than one thousand talents!

This brings me back to the rank and file who benefited the least from the Persian conquest and who could have most resented (or blamed) Persian influence at court. They would have been witnesses only to the increasing extravagance of Alexander's court whilst their own lives became increasingly more difficult. Apart from the fact that the army suffered great hardships because of weather and terrain, their years in Bactria/Sogdia/India bore no resemblance to previous victorious Macedonian warfare. And although raised to be warriors and with a recognition for the glories of war, the Macedonian army also had an understandable “what’s in it for me” attitude. Philip’s expansion of Macedonia must have been appreciated in that more land and wealth was available for distribution and his soldiers were able to return home on a frequent basis to enjoy their increased circumstances. As well as the political intent the conquest of Persia initially promised the army the same. According to Arrian (2.7.6) at Issus Alexander pointed out to his army “the greatness of the rewards for which they were incurring danger” and that “nothing remained after this final struggle but to rule the whole of Asia and set an end to their long exertions.” Later, at Persepolis, “Alexander gave it over to his soldiers to plunder, all but the palaces” (Diodorus 17.70.1). Curtius (5.6.1-8 ) describes their avaricious fury – this was their “reward” for their exertions and their achievements in battle.

After the death of Darius, the Macedonians thought they were going home (Curtius 6.2.15) but it was not to be. And by the time the army was to march into India (around the time of the pages conspiracy), “since he saw that his army was by this time cumbered with much booty and hard to move, at break of day, after the baggage-wagons had been loaded, he burned first those which belonged to himself and his companions, and then gave orders to set fire to those of the Macedonians ..." (Plutarch 57.1) No one, then or today, could be foolish enough not to realize that with the wealth of Persia at his fingertips Alexander could replace his baggage with ease. Not so for the Macedonians. Except for any booty that they might have sent home, they were back where they started. Which is probably why in India, Alexander hoped “he might gain his army’s good will through gratitude. Accordingly he allowed them to ravage the enemy’s country which was full of every good thing.” (Diodorus 17.94.3-4) It couldn’t have helped much in the long term – by the time the army had returned to Persia they were in debt to the tune of twenty thousand talents! They could not, however, have known earlier that their debts were to be settled by Alexander once the campaign was over. (Arrian 7.5.3)

And then came the real Persianization as seen through the eyes of the army … the Epigoni; new ranks of Persian soldiers to fight alongside the Macedonians; Persian commanders; Persian brides with their dowries donated by Alexander; Persian wealth seemingly still in the hands of what was supposed to be the enemy. The enemy against whom the Macedonians had fought for so long was now to enjoy the benefits of Macedonian rule, seemingly to the detriment of the rank and file, many of whom were no better off (perhaps even worse) than when they began the campaign a decade earlier! Even the gratuities granted those who were to return to Macedonia surely could not compensate. You said in an earlier post that the Macedonians did not want to go home because they would be leaving the party. It is true, but more than that – for most of them the party was only just starting and they were not being allowed to remain! And, of course, we can understand here if some resentment appeared amongst the Friends of Alexander – some of them also were being sent home from the party.

Ah, this turned out unsurprisingly to be an essay after all. I merely wanted to demonstrate that the army had every reason to end up resentful of the Persians and that I don’t believe the anti-Persian sentiment as stated in the sources should be considered as exaggerated. If I’m unconvincing I’ll probably not return to this, only because I’m driving myself crazy flicking back and forth through all the sources. And I do mean to address your remarks on the Persian weddings and the wearing of trousers because I can see that these are of particular interest to you – although after pouring through this missive you’ll probably be grateful that I’m leaving that for later.

Best regards.

athenas owl wrote:Find me one <a narrative> that is not revisionist!

I've been away for a few days and now, of course, am totally lost in the weavings of these threads. At the risk of being pedantic (of which there's always a high risk), the extant sources on Alexander should not really be considered to be "revisionist". Yes, they are biased, for a multitude of reasons, and they have been influenced by earlier sources which were, in themselves, biased - as people have so rightly said, many times, no source can be unbiased.

However, to use the term "revisionist" is not really accurate - the term should only be used for more recent works which attempt to "revise" the "standard" picture of Alexander that earlier scholars had built out of the sources. We should be careful not to mix "revisionist" with "biased".

(Interestingly enough, "bias" is one of the most difficult things to get across to school children. Part of this is because they can't spell it, or its derivatives; but partly it's because, for whatever reason, "bias" sounds a negative word, and they find it difficult to grasp that it is, in fact, totally neutral ... well, I think it's interesting, anyway. )

ATB

athenas owl wrote:It does depend on ones desired interpretation doesn't it? I think they killed Alexander somehow in those last twelve days, as I have said before, it is just too handy him dying like that right before the Arabian campaign. So I don't discount resentment at all.

You said it all in that paragraph - it's very easy for people to look at Alexander dying and go "aahhhh!"; and you are, of course, perfectly correct that it was extremely handy.

On the other hand, he had to die at some point, and it could just as easily have been in the middle of the Arabian campaign, without the "aid" of his companions. Just as there were numerous times when he could/might have died in the previous 10 years, without any of his companions taking a hand (although, of course, the one time that we specifically know of when one of his companions saved him from death was when Cleitus, literally, "took a hand", at the Granicus).

Whereas I do not believe Alexander was killed by his companions, relieved though they might have been that he was dead (but were they, considering the bun-fight that started soon after?). It was, instead, very bad luck that he died just at the start of the Arabian campaign - had he died later, after the Arabian campaign, he might have settled things in the empire better, Roxane would have had her baby and they would all have known it was a boy, and therefore they would all have pledged their allegiance to his son, without the need for the "funeral games" ...

"It does depend on one's desired interpretation, doesn't it?" how true!

ATB

Lot's to answer...and I can't right now. It's tax time for the self-employed...and I hope to surface after Monday! I wonder if they'll accept talents or payment in kind (fish!)

Quickly, just a thought, if Alexander had survived Roxane's baby might not have been the only child, or boy for that matter (how many of accounts of the aftermath of his death do we read that they awaited the birth of Roxane's son..what, did they have sonograms back then?)....there's another thing that doesn't make sense to me. Why would Perdiccas help Roxane kill Strateira, especially before finding out if she was carrying a boy or girl? If, and I say if..Strateira was pregnant as well, wouldn't Perdiccas have wanted to be sure that the one who had the boy would be the one he backed? Also, why would, if she was not pregnant, would he have conspired with Roxane to kill her and Drypetis? Did Roxane have that kind of power (or her brothers, etc...as the case may be)? Maybe she did...

When I talk about the resentment of the army, I am thinking more of the upper command. It is their story that survives really. Their version of events. An unresentful army would have benn more shocking. Though their resentment flucuated with deep love (or something like it)...Opis was an act of jealousy to me. A separate kind of resentment than that of troops pushed to the brink like at the Beas. Though even there, they didn't kill him, they just wanted to go back. Has anyone read Heckel's idea that the Beas was a hoax? I haven't had time to search here and I can't access the article on the comp. I will be buying the book it is in in the future. "Crossroads of History: The Age of Alexande"r

And yes, ATG could have died at any time, it's a miracle he survived as long as he did. As much as I despised Doherty's book, there was one thing, and one thing only that caught my attention. Hephaistion didn't die until after Craterus, Alexander's other loyal "friend" was on his way from ATG's side. Then Hephaistion dies and Alexander is isolated to an extant. Just interesting, if only for the chain of events that followed. ATG most likely did die from disease, but at an incredibly handy time...or so it seemed right at the moment.

Amyntoros, the rest of the Plutarch section includes this: " An act which in the deliberation of it had seemed more dangerous and difficult than it proved in the execution, with which few were dissatisfied for most of the soldiers, as if they had been inspired, uttering loud outcries and warlike shoutings, supplied one another with what was absolutely necessary, and burnt and destroyed all that was superfluous, the sight of which redoubled Alexander's zeal and eagerness for his design. And, indeed, he was now grown very severe and inexorable in punishing those who committed any fault. For he put Menander, one of his friends, to death for deserting a fortress where he had placed him in garrison, and shot Orsodates, one of the barbarians who revolted from him, with his own hand."

Chronology wasn't one of Plutarch's strongpoints (or any of them for that matter). Perhaps that is why RLF assumes this happened near Meshed, before they went south towards Seistan. An error on his part, perhaps. But in Plutarch's own words, the troops, except for a very few, went along with it with zeal. Yet, there again come the "fear" part at the end, using the executions of a deserter and a rebel as examples (like that army would be afraid of a King who personally speared an enemy?). Why isn't the death of Cleitus or Philotas and Parmenion used here if this was later?

Marcus, there is a difference between bias and revisionism, yes, but the narratives of the "drunk Alexander" or "the philosopher in arms" or whatever a certain writer was trying to create (rhetoricians and philosophers are not historians even though we depend on them in some large measure for the histories) seem to have begun almost immediately. Ptolemy, as much as I appreciate some things about him, was certainly revising history to his own advantage, don't you think? Certain people who played large parts in the story of Alexander...Hephaistion, Perdiccas, anyone he didn't like or who might have stolen his thunder have their roles neglected or ignored, at best. Leaving important bits out is revisionism to my mind, not bias. Did Cleitarchus make up the whole Thais/Persepolis episode (his father was known for his "low" histories, as well), or did Ptolemy do a bit of "revision" on the spot in his own memoirs?

The many deaths of Callisthenes..was that bias, or revisionism by people who were there?

By the time we get to Justin, how much is bias and how much is just made up? One of my favourite anecdotes from the whole era is related in Plutarch (P 46.2) when Onesicritus is reading a bit of his history to Lysimachus and when he gets to the part about the Amazons, Lysimachus smiles and asks..."And where was I at this time?"

Amyntoros wrote:But yes, there is a tendency on the forum to see everything as black versus white, good versus bad, love versus hate, etc.

I've been away due to life's demands (and not a single symposion ) and I don't think I'll even try to answer everything, except to say that this is a point very well taken. I think it comes out of the tendency of some at least to have as their goal winning the argument and/or pushing an agenda based on personal issues rather than seeking truth, which is what we, as scholars (however amateur), should be doing. I'd say to people on both sides, if you find yourself never conceding a point or acknowledging truth on the other side, you're on the wrong track.

I wonder also if it would be better if we clarified our arguments by defining objective measures (as much as possible) at the outset. Army disaffection is a case in point: what are we arguing over? Not whether it was there or not, because obviously it was, but degree. But without quantifying it, we are going only on our impressions of the other person's position, which isn't necessarily their actual position. So maybe Paralus thinks I'm saying there was only 1 lb. of disaffection, when I'm actually arguing that there was 4 lbs, because it seems to me he's arguing there was 10 lbs, when actually he's arguing that there was 5 lbs. -- and we may not be as far apart, actually, as we think.

Obviously it's hard to come up with a way to quantify a question of human emotions, but perhaps we can borrow some ideas from the modern polling industry. E.g., as a hypothesis: "the Makedonians were so disaffected with Alexander that a majority would have deposed him peacefully if they'd had the option." Using that as a starting point, we could argue whether the sources indicate something like a majority, whether they'd truly have liked to depose him or just wanted policy changes, etc.

The alcholism debate, which I'm going to get into when I find time (call me crazy), is the next case in point. If we argue that Alexander "drank too much" or was "too fond of wine" what does that mean? How much is too much? If it's "the amount of which I disapprove," then said amount should be stated.

To me the pertinent question is whether Alexander had the disease known as alcoholism, or more exactly, the one of its two forms known as alcohol dependence. Fortunately, there are agreed-upon quantitative measures. More in a future post.

Warmly,
Karen

marcus wrote:[Whereas I do not believe Alexander was killed by his companions, relieved though they might have been that he was dead (but were they, considering the bun-fight that started soon after?). It was, instead, very bad luck that he died just at the start of the Arabian campaign - had he died later, after the Arabian campaign, he might have settled things in the empire better, Roxane would have had her baby and they would all have known it was a boy, and therefore they would all have pledged their allegiance to his son, without the need for the "funeral games" ...

Relieved indeed one might think, and not just the companions. They – and the army – had, one imagines, fresh in their memories the filth and butchery of a murderous Indian campaign; years of guerrilla warfare in Bactria and Sogdia; the hubris driven debacle of the Makran and the re-establishment of royal authority via a series executions reminiscent of modern day Texas. They may have been forgiven for thinking that a spot of enjoyment of imperial spoils would be the order of the day. They were sadly mistaken.

If they’d little idea what sort of fellow it was that they set out with some ten years hence, they were in no doubt now. The – in the end largely ineffectual – subjugation of “India” (which included the almost total annihilation of the Malli population and the massacre of several others) and the deliberate march through the Makran will have indicated that there were no heights that would not be scaled by their king – or at least attempted. He had outdone his father Philip (as he neatly alludes in his speech to his hugely disaffected army) and triumphed in that competition. His ambitions knew no bounds and he had upon him no restraints by any “higher authority”. He could do whatever he so wished and take his army wherever his fancy led. The massive armament being readied in Cilicia served as eloquent testimony to the fact that Heracles too was about to be put away. The campaign of “revenge” to put Alexander on the Persian throne of empire was dead. Long live the campaign.

Alexander had been lucky on a number of occasions. Disaster had been avoided – the Makran being the most recent – but sooner or later their king’s unrelenting pursuit of conquering glory and his emulation of, if not bettering of, the mythic or real heroes of the past would court a disaster for the Macedonian army that would be unavoidable.

athenas owl wrote: If, and I say if..Strateira was pregnant as well, wouldn't Perdiccas have wanted to be sure that the one who had the boy would be the one he backed?

This dove-tails with Marcus’ second point above about the “funeral games”. The child was important to Perdiccas only as a cipher and, had it been a girl, so much the better. Perdiccas was playing Philip’s game: Put yourself into position to take the regency and then the Kingship. The child was relevant only insofar as it would supply the “readies” for that regency.

His empire dreaming was rudely interrupted by the Macedonian rank and file. Regardless of the confusion in the sources it is clear that the phalanx was not about to have some half Macedonian/Persian foisted upon them – both Heracles and the future Alexander IV are rejected on the grounds of their Persian extraction. If they appear rather discombobulated by Persians in the ranks, they seem appalled at the prospect of a half Persian king.

I would think little will have been different had Alexander died in Arabia.

athenas owl wrote:Marcus, there is a difference between bias and revisionism, yes, but the narratives of the "drunk Alexander" or "the philosopher in arms" or whatever a certain writer was trying to create (rhetoricians and philosophers are not historians even though we depend on them in some large measure for the histories) seem to have begun almost immediately. Ptolemy, as much as I appreciate some things about him, was certainly revising history to his own advantage, don't you think? Certain people who played large parts in the story of Alexander...Hephaistion, Perdiccas, anyone he didn't like or who might have stolen his thunder have their roles neglected or ignored, at best. Leaving important bits out is revisionism to my mind, not bias. Did Cleitarchus make up the whole Thais/Persepolis episode (his father was known for his "low" histories, as well), or did Ptolemy do a bit of "revision" on the spot in his own memoirs?

The many deaths of Callisthenes..was that bias, or revisionism by people who were there?

By the time we get to Justin, how much is bias and how much is just made up? One of my favourite anecdotes from the whole era is related in Plutarch (P 46.2) when Onesicritus is reading a bit of his history to Lysimachus and when he gets to the part about the Amazons, Lysimachus smiles and asks..."And where was I at this time?"

But what our ancient sources do with the history is not, strictly speaking, "revisionism", historiographically speaking. They might be creating the Alexander that they want to get across to us; but you can't have "revisionism" without having something to "revise" (and not least because we don't know, of course, which of them is more or less biased than the others, in a positive or negative way).

I'm being terribly pedantic and nit-picky here, you realise.

ATB

Okay, maybe it is 10 lbs. of disaffection Paralus is arguing, to suggest that Makedonian nobles & army alike were relieved at Alexander's death.

But it is what I asked for, relatively quantifiable. And I would go so far as to say it's a factual falsehood, because it flies in the face of what the sources say. An army that would rather be rid of its king simply does not behave like this.

Plutarch wrote:The Macedonians, therefore, supposing he was dead, came with great clamours to the gates, and menaced his friends so that they were forced to admit them, and let them all pass through unarmed by his bedside.

Arrian wrote:It is further recorded in these documents [the Royal Diaries] that the soldiers were passionately eager to see him... nothing could keep them from a sight of him, and the motive in almost every heart was grief and a kind of helpless bewilderment at the thought of losing their king.

Justin wrote:Then the soldiers became restless, suspecting that their king was dying because of treachery, but Alexander himself placated them. He had himself carried to the highest spot in the city, where he let them all come ot see him and, as they wept, held out his hand for them to kiss. They were all in tears, but Alexander, so far from weeping, gave not the slightest indication of being in low spirits -- he actually comforted some who could not control their grief...

Curtius wrote:Tears welled up as they looked at him, and they appeared not as an army visiting its king but one attending his funeral. The grief was especially intense among those at his bedside.

This is at 10-5-1; read 10-5-7 to 10-5-25 for too long a description to quote of grief, shock, dismay, the city plunged into darkness because no one would light lamps, etc. among Makedonians and Persians alike, after Alexander died. Here's a bit about the nobles' reaction:

The young noblemen who formed his customary bodyguard could neither suppress their bitter anguish nor confine themselves to the vestibule of the royal tent. They wandered around like madmen, filling the whole city with the sound of their mournful grieving, forgoing no kind of lament that sorrow suggests in such circumstances.

If Perseus was not still down I could complete the quintet by citing Diodoros, I'm sure. (Maybe someone else can help?)

This is a factual falsehood also:

He could do whatever he so wished and take his army wherever his fancy led.

He had turned back in India, against his own will, due to the army's insistence -- as you yourself have asserted several times, Paralus.

Differing opinions are fine: factual falsehoods are not, and in fact they undermine the credibility of opinions they are used to support. Peter Green -- the first person who I saw claim that no one much cared that Alexander would or did die -- did a disservice not so much to Alexander, since he's been dead for 3 1/3 millennia, but to the scholarly ethic of grounding one's work in the sources.

Karen

P.S.: "The Many Deaths of Kallisthenes" would make a great title for an article investigating his demise...

karen wrote:... since he's been dead for 3 1/3 millennia, but to the scholarly ethic of grounding one's work in the sources.

Three and a third ... wow, that really shakes up our standardised ideas of chronology ...

P.S.: "The Many Deaths of Kallisthenes" would make a great title for an article investigating his demise...

This is the time when I could really do with being able to put my fingers on my articles more quickly and easily ... there are at least two which deal with this in some detail. Oh, for the time to organise my stuff properly, and to prepare proper incipits for all ...

ATB

karen wrote:This is a factual falsehood also:

He could do whatever he so wished and take his army wherever his fancy led.

He had turned back in India, against his own will, due to the army's insistence -- as you yourself have asserted several times, Paralus.

No. It is not.

We are not talking about the Beas. The "factual falsehood" here here is in the intellectual error of comparing the army of the "Indian" campaign to the royal army making ready to leave Babylon. They are in no way the same animal. That which was likely responsible for the refusal at the Beas was on its way home with Craterus. What was left was a hybrid army of Asian "successors" and some 8-9,000 Macedonians.

An entirely different creature of Alexander's creation, owing its existence and loyalty its creator and ready to serve his purposes. You seem to discard this point.

As to the army's sorrow at the death, this is understandable. It in no vitiates the concerns of some of the Marshals or the army prior to death. It is one thing to contemplate his death; quite another to confront it.

The phalanx seemed to get over it all in enough time to firmly put the lie to a half Persian king sititing upon the Macedonian throne.

So many divergent themes in the posts here and I have so little time. For the moment I will touch only on the following:

athenas owl wrote:Marcus, there is a difference between bias and revisionism, yes, but the narratives of the "drunk Alexander" or "the philosopher in arms" or whatever a certain writer was trying to create (rhetoricians and philosophers are not historians even though we depend on them in some large measure for the histories) seem to have begun almost immediately. Ptolemy, as much as I appreciate some things about him, was certainly revising history to his own advantage, don't you think? Certain people who played large parts in the story of Alexander...Hephaistion, Perdiccas, anyone he didn't like or who might have stolen his thunder have their roles neglected or ignored, at best. Leaving important bits out is revisionism to my mind, not bias.

There isn’t anything in the sources which indicates that Ptolemy neglected or ignored the roles of Hephaistion, Perdiccas and anyone else he “might” have disliked. On the contrary, it appears that Ptolemy is the main source for information on Hephaistion and Perdiccas, especially their military exploits. We know that Arrian’s was the work which used Ptolemy and Aristobulus extensively. There are 34 excerpts in Arrian which include references to Hephaistion; 19 in Curtius, although anything after and including the Susa weddings is lost; 8 in Plutarch; 1 in Justin; 11 in Diodorus. Examining the same sources for Perdiccas, up to and including the death of Alexander, there are 24 excerpts in Arrian; 14 in Curtius; 3 in Plutarch; none in Justin; 6 in Diodorus.

And no, I didn’t sit down and read all the sources to prove a point. Marcus and I made files on these two individuals a long time ago and it was just a matter of opening them and counting the excerpts.

Best regards,

Didn’t have time to deal with this before the dual anniversary lunch/symposium, I’ll weigh in before this new fangled Robin Hood begins in half an hour…

karen wrote:Okay, maybe it is 10 lbs. of disaffection Paralus is arguing, to suggest that Makedonian nobles & army alike were relieved at Alexander's death.

But it is what I asked for, relatively quantifiable. And I would go so far as to say it's a factual falsehood, because it flies in the face of what the sources say. An army that would rather be rid of its king simply does not behave like this...

And so follow sundry source citations of the reactions – from expected to the extravagant – to the Macedonian king’s death in Babylon. And that would be some 4.5 kilos.

As I’ve remarked, harbouring a desire to be somehow relieved of the fellow about to take you off around the world again and having it realised are two differing things. That there was grief at the king’s death is not surprising; that it became a general group thing is also not surprising. That in no way means that they were not happy with the results as they so eloquently expressed them in the voting down of all the dead king’s plans, no doubt exploited by an ambitious Perdiccas satisfied with the feel and fit of the signet ring and eager to try on the empire for fit as well, including the cancellation of the armada being assembled in Cilicia.

This thread within the thread was originally about the Macedones’ view of their king and how that had changed over time; the fact that there was disaffection abroad and that it predated both Opis and the death in Babylon. When combing the sources one can present whatever view one likes and pick the passages to support it. To use Bosworth’s words:

…one has a fair, if incomplete, spectrum of the modern views of Alexander, the humanitarian champion of Hellenic culture, the promoter of the brotherhood of mankind, the sinister Machiavellian schemer, the alcohol drenched debauchee. One creates one’s picture, and the sources, if selectively exploited, will confirm it – provided that one ignores the vast bulk of the evidence. Alexander in Fact and Fiction

I could add that restricting oneself to the single episode further limits the picture. Somewhere hereabouts Amyntoros has given a wider picture of grounds for disaffection.