No Cremation

[athenas owl]

Isn't it possible that Ptolemy's motives were BOTH personal and political?

[amyntoros]

Isn't it possible that Ptolemy's motives were BOTH personal and political?

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.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

The decision not to cremate has a clear cultural explanation in the Egyptian context.

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. Hijacking the corpse was illegal and dangerous. It is the opposite of what a politically cunning individual would have done. Therefore the ancient sources are probably telling the truth about Ptolemy's motives. 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.

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.

Best wishes,

Andrew

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.

[athenas owl]

Isn't it possible that Ptolemy's motives were BOTH personal and political?

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.

Best regards,

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...

I'll get back to the personal vs. the political in a bit...

[jasonxx]

athena owl

I agree with your reasoning for Alexander wishing to be give a send of as hepheastion. Yet its still speculative. As i saidhe could have gone total divine and thought Ammon the beat rout to been a god.

As for the generals and there motives. Can only be personal opinion. As I believe the generals poisoned Alexander anyway to save there piece of the pie. I doubt they gave a Rats Ass about Alexanders last wishes anyway.

Amongst them the generals did what suited themselves. Indeed as paralus said im with the theory of who holds the corpse has about the best symbol.

Kenny

[amyntoros]

The decision not to cremate has a clear cultural explanation in the Egyptian context.

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.)

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.

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 ...

Hijacking the corpse was illegal and dangerous. It is the opposite of what a politically cunning individual would have done.

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."

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.

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.

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.

To take political advantage of the corpse later, Ptolemy had to first secure possession of it.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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. Yes it's in Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead: "I’ve been lying in Babylon for a whole thirty days now, but my guardsman Ptolemy promises that, whenever he gets a respite from the 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." This, however is an obviously fictitious conversation between Philip and Alexander, both dead, and Lucian surely based it on what he knew had already happened rather than on any statement that Alexander made in life where his aspirations to become a god were all Greek-based. I'll go back to the evidence regarding Hephaistion here. You said earlier in this thread:

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

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?

Best regards

[Paralus]

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.

As Amyntoros has so eloquently stated: he had to get hold of the corpse first.

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 wherein Alexander, having announced that his body will be conveyed to Egypt, prevails upon Ptolemy to take care of his body as well as “whispering other things” into Ptolemy’s ear. The Liber de Morte, as is well known, is the subject of considerable debate – much of that centred on the date of its composition. Much of what it contains is well suited to provide “documentary relief” for what actually occurred. Bosworth has cogently argued for a date of 309/8. Rather than appearing an aggrandising dynast Ptolemy neatly comes off as the protector and respecter of his deceased king’s wishes. Significantly, the only one of those in Babylon at the time who carried out his king’s will.

The historicity and date of the document aside, if we are to accept it as read do we also then accept as fact that of all those at Medius’ party only Eumenes, Ptolemy, Perdiccas, Lysimachus, Asander and the enigmatic Holkias were innocent of the poisoning of their king?

More to the point, the wider context of events – the causes of the first Diadoch war – you resolutely refuse to countenance; preferring to treat the diversion of the corpse and the attack on Egypt in isolation:

From Alexander's Tomb

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.

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.

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.

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.

Having secured that, Perdiccas was now planning marriage to Alexander’s sister, Cleopatra. Any male offspring from such a union would, being of “pure blood” and therefore no barbarian half-caste (as the infantry at Babylon referred to Rhoxane’s future offspring), be immediately in line for the Macedonian throne. Perdiccas would be the boy’s “Philip”. Antipater, Craterus and Lysimachus and Monophthalmos (who he had tried to bring to account following Alexander's lead – judicial murder would be nearer the mark) were mobilising and Perdiccas’ repudiation of Nicaea for Cleopatra resulted in Ptolemy, Antipater, Lysimachus and Craterus contracting marriage alliances to seal the coalition against Perdiccas and Eumenes. In this milieu we have Alexander’s corpse losing its way to Macedon and finding its way to Ptolemy.

Perdiccas dispatched Eumenes north to join with Neoptolemus and meet the imminent invasion. Neoptolemus promptly went over to the opposition before Eumenes arrived (he had presents and entreaties to deliver to Cleopatra) Perdiccas headed towards Egypt and raised charges against Ptolemy which Ptolemy refuted making them “appear ill-founded” (Arrian. Succ. 1.28). Perdiccas then prosecuted the war “notwithstanding the opposition of his troops” (ibid) .The war was afoot.

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. Analysing Ptolemy’s action outside of the contextual events of which it is a part is apt to provide a rather skewed view.

[Taphoi]

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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

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.

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.

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:

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

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

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.

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.

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".

Nice one, Andrew! 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 dialogue

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.

Do you consider the above to be undeniably historical fact, or Lucian’s opinion on Alexander's motives, put into words from Alexander's mouth?

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.

All ancient sources? I don't see it …

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

Hmmm, Arrian says "even more" which doesn’t mean the only reason, as in your earlier statement that :-

.. 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.

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 :-

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)

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

All ancient sources? I don't see it …

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.

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 fear it is pointless to quote a modern historian, be he everso eminent, to refute Arrian! We know from elsewhere that Perdiccas was based in Pisidia when Alexander's corpse was hijacked and that a debate had been underway regarding whether he should move against Ptolemy or Antipater. If you look at a map you will see that the move eastwards to Cilicia upon hearing the news that Ptolemy had got away with the corpse is a physical manifestation of the fact that it was decisive (or at least that Arrian believed it to be decisive) in causing Perdiccas to move against Ptolemy.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

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.

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?"

I suppose one or more of the many eyewitnesses must have recorded that the army was amused in this manner every time Alexander was wounded. I imagine Arrian et al decided not to include this piece of information, for Lucian's dialogue is "a device for discussing the real details of the history."

I fear it is pointless to quote a modern historian, be he everso eminent, to refute Arrian!

I need to ask from which source you are getting the “Arrian, Events After Alexander quote” ? Your version 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

My version of Photius reads:

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.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

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.

I have not said the theft of the corpse was the sole reason…

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.

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.

And by armed force, brought to bear by a coalition of marshals as mentioned, those ambitions were thwarted and Ptolemy wound up with the corpse

…but I do agree with Arrian in saying that it was the decisive reason.

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.

It is reading only slightly between the lines of history (rather than historical fiction) to infer that what now remained the of royal army will have been convinced to move against Ptolemy on the basis that Ptolemy would be tried on the charges that Perdiccas had brought against him. Having those charges rebutted by Ptlomey, Perdiccas carried out his desire for war “against the wishes of his troops”.

As an aside, it is unlikely that Ptolemy had much, if anything, in the way of Macedonian infantry. It is certain that the coalition did. Perdiccas faced war in both northern Asia Minor and Egypt. His army would need to be convinced to fight one or the other. The fighting in the north would be against Craterus’ veterans and Antipater’s Macedonians. Neoptolemus decided against such a fight, preferring to join the invaders with his Macedonians. Egypt with few, or minimal, Macedonian levies was the more likely.

[Taphoi]

The blood not ichor quote is of one or two isolated statments in a sea of contrary ones.

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.

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.

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.

I need to ask from which source you are getting the “Arrian, Events After Alexander" quote?

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.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

[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.

Interesting. I must try and contact Jona Lendering and find out from whence he obtained his translation, for they are very different.

Regarding your quotes above; okay, I can change directions as well. 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.

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.

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 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”.

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 …

But lets’ say that you had convinced me, although obviously you haven’t. This would mean that Alexander didn’t consider himself to be the son of Ammon. Does it also mean that he never expected to be a god in the afterlife? Why then send a request to Ammon for Hephaistion to be made a god? Is it your conclusion that it was just public relations - a means to show the army how much he cared about Hephaistion, but with no foundation in true belief? Did the seemingly deeply religious Alexander – the sources are FULL of evidence for this – believe that when Hephaistion was declared a Hero it was nonsense? That it was simply a useful tool to demonstrate his grief at his loss? And did he suddenly, on his deathbed, remember the brief time he had spent in Egypt more than ten years earlier and decide that, as Pharaoh, he had a means to attain divinity, something he didn’t believe was available to him in his own religion? It must have been a deathbed conversion for there isn’t a single shred of evidence in any source that Alexander promoted himself as an Egyptian living god during his lifetime. Why would he think that he couldn’t become a god in his own religion anyway? That’s almost like saying that Christians don’t believe in heaven.

Do I believe that Alexander had no faith in his own religion? No, I do not.

Best regards,

PS. I note that you haven’t commented on the Lucian excerpt regarding the army being amused at Alexander’s injuries, but I don’t imagine you will find any other source to corroborate that one.

[jasonxx]

Amyntros

You are right It doesnt say anywhere about Alexander believing or saying he was a god. But we must assume he did. The cryptic pointer to Alexander believing his divinity. His or are his reasons for the way out trip to Siwah.

Siwah has nothing to do with tactics battles or even Alexanders forceful will. We must assume it was a real pilgrimage and he wanted some answers. We cant even say Siwah was a propoganda stunt. As we know he didnt reveal to any one what he had been told and would reveal all to his mother.

I believe Alexanders thoughts about divinity were very true and the only person who really knew how true and what those beliefs were. was his mother. She fostered and nurtured the idea so we can assume he would say what the SIwah oracle said.

Now we can assume oracles are just people saying things in a round about way to please the questioner. And would did tell Alexander whathe wanted to hear.

I dont buy the divinity of the egyptians with Alexander. his roots and beliefs were the greek gods and heroes and just placated the other religions to pacify including Egypt.

i doubt egypt the foremost in Alexanders mind, He was building from Babylon.I dont think Alexander had any wish to become egyptian God. he was greko Macedonian and yearned to dance with Achilles.

each to thereown but i believe Ptolemy took the body for powerial gains.

kenny