No Cremation

[Taphoi]

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

My view is that Alexander's attitude to his divinity was complex and equivocal and that is what we see reflected in the sources.

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.

For mockery of Alexander's claim to divine birth by the troops:

Consequently, they did not endure in silence, but called on him to discharge them all from the army, and to campaign himself in company with his father, referring in mockery to Ammon.

Cordially,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

My view is that Alexander's attitude to his divinity was complex and equivocal and that is what we see reflected in the sources.

I'll agree that it was complex, as was his relationship to all his gods, however, no matter that he gave due respect to gods of other pantheons when he was in their territory, his religion and attitude to his divinity was unequivocally Macedonian. What you don’t see reflected in the sources after Alexander left Egypt is any reference to Egyptian gods or to attaining Pharaonic divinity … zip, nada, zero, nil, nix, absolutely nothing …

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.

For mockery of Alexander's claim to divine birth by the troops:

Consequently, they did not endure in silence, but called on him to discharge them all from the army, and to campaign himself in company with his father, referring in mockery to Ammon.

When he was injured, Andrew; when he was injured! Lucian wasn’t writing about a confrontation between Alexander and his troops when they were frustrated and angry with him. Lucian’s statement, if historical, as you insist, was that those close to Alexander were AMUSED when he was wounded, fainted, or cried out for a doctor. Following Lucian I suppose they must have fallen down on the floor in riotous laughter after he was hit by the Malian arrow! So much for the reports by all the other extant historians …

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

In the light of the blood-ichor quote and Arrian’s mention of the mockery of the troops for Alexander’s divinity, it is entirely possible that Lucian knew of a source, who mentioned sniggers from the troops, when Alexander suffered some minor wound.

What you don’t see reflected in the sources after Alexander left Egypt is any reference to Egyptian gods or to attaining Pharaonic divinity … zip, nada, zero, nil, nix, absolutely nothing …

References to Zeus (or Jupiter) as Alexander’s divine father are references to Alexander’s Pharaonic divinity. The Greeks adopted a syncretism between Ammon and Zeus and “Son of Ammon-Re” is part of the titulary (hieroglyphic name) of the Pharaoh. I'm not aware of any references in the orthodox ancient sources to Alexander having claimed to be the son of Zeus before Egypt (though his family traditionally believed themselves to be descended from Zeus via Heracles).

Just before the killing of Cleitus:

Cleitus said…”It is by the blood of the Macedonians, and by these wounds, that you are become so great as to disown Philip and make yourself son to Ammon.”

At the Acesines in 326BC:

When he had poured a libation to Heracles his ancestor, to Ammon and to the other gods to whom he usually made offering…

In Carmania upon the safe return of the fleet:

Alexander then swore by Zeus of the Greeks and the Libyan Ammon…

The tetradrachms of Alexander’s bodyguard Lysimachus (see my avatar) also make the association of Alexander with Ammon rather explicit and Athenaeus says that Alexander wore the horns of Ammon at a party.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

In the light of the blood-ichor quote and Arrian’s mention of the mockery of the troops for Alexander’s divinity, it is entirely possible that Lucian knew of a source, who mentioned sniggers from the troops, when Alexander suffered some minor wound.

As you wish, Andrew, as you wish … I’m sure you won’t raise objections if I use a similar claim at some later date if it is useful in supporting my defense of a source.

The Greeks adopted a syncretism between Ammon and Zeus and “Son of Ammon-Re” is part of the titulary (hieroglyphic name) of the Pharaoh.

Greek syncretism could involve the adoption of a foreign god as with Mithra and Isis, but also the equating of one god with another. Ammon was equated with Zeus. Pausanias (5.15.11) writes of an Elean grouping of statues – “the Libyan god and Ammonian Hera and Ammon’s friend, which is a title of Hermes.” Ernst Badian in The Deification of Alexander the Great notes that, “Ammon had long been identified with Zeus, as most scholars have recognized. Hence the content of the Ionian revelations, making Alexander a son of Zeus, coincided with that of Ammon’s ….”

Then there are the following passages from Herodotus, of whom Alexander was surely familiar (unless you want to claim his reading was limited to Euripides, Homer, and Xenophon!):

Hence the Egyptians make the image of Zeus into the face of a ram; and the Ammonians do so also after their example, being settlers both from the Egyptians and from the Ethiopians, and using a language which is a medley of both tongues: and in my opinion it is from this god that the Ammonians took the name which they have, for the Egyptians call Zeus /Amun/.

This I heard from the priests at Thebes, and what follows is said by the prophetesses of Dodona. They say that two black doves flew from Thebes to Egypt, and came one of them to Libya and the other to their land. And this latter settled upon an oak-tree and spoke with human voice, saying that it was necessary that a prophetic seat of Zeus should be established in that place; and they supposed that that was of the gods which was announced to them, and made one accordingly: and the dove which went away to the Libyans, they say, bade the Libyans to make an Oracle of Ammon; and this also is of Zeus.

First, at a distance of ten days' journey from Thebes, are the Ammonians, whose temple is derived from that of the Theban Zeus, for the image of Zeus in Thebes also, as I have said before, has the head of a ram.

I'm not aware of any references in the orthodox ancient sources to Alexander having claimed to be the son of Zeus before Egypt (though his family traditionally believed themselves to be descended from Zeus via Heracles).

In Alexander’s Religion and Divinity, Ernst Fredricksmeyer discusses the passage in Arrian (3.3.2) wherein Alexander decided to visit the oracle and states that “Arrian, on the authority either of Ptolemy or Aristobulus, states clearly that already by now Alexander attributed his birth to Ammon, that is Zeus, in the sense that tradition attributed the birth of Heracles and Perseus to Zeus. This then was a Greek, not an Egyptian concept.”

I moved the following response to the end because it may be my last comment in this thread.

References to Zeus (or Jupiter) as Alexander’s divine father are references to Alexander’s Pharaonic divinity.

This is not evidence, Andrew. This is not proof. It is merely a different way of expressing your opinion on the very subject we’ve been arguing about throughout this thread - except by stating the above so dogmatically it seems intended as a preemptive strike to prevent my posting examples of any of the myriad references in which Alexander is also called the son of Zeus. So be it …

Best regards,

[amyntoros]

Ah, couldn’t resist this additional post.

The tetradrachms of Alexander’s bodyguard Lysimachus (see my avatar) also make the association of Alexander with Ammon rather explicit and Athenaeus says that Alexander wore the horns of Ammon at a party.

The tetradrachms were issued after the death of Alexander so they give no indication of Alexander’s own desires; however, and I must stress this, portrayals of Alexander as Ammon or Alexander being referred to as the son of Ammon do not imply Pharoanic association if one accepts that Ammon was equated with Zeus by the Greeks and Macedonians. You also understandably omitted to mention that Alexander dressed as other gods, according to Ephippus of Olynthus via Athenaeus:

Ephippus, again, says that Alexander also wore the sacred vestments at his dinner parties, at one time putting on the purple robe of Ammon, and thin slippers and horns just like the god's, at another time the costume of Artemis, which he often wore even in his chariot, wearing the Persian garb and showing above the shoulders the bow and hunting-spear of the goddess, while at still other times he was garbed in the costume of Hermes; on other occasions as a rule, and in every-day use, he wore a purple riding-cloak, a purple tunic with white stripes, and the Macedonian hat with the royal fillet; but on social occasions he wore the winged sandals and broad-brimmed hat on his head, and carried the caduceus in his hand; yet often, again, he bore the lion’s skin and club in imitation of Heracles

Apparently he preferred the dress of Artemis, Hermes, and Heracles over that of Ammon! - I see that he wore the clothes of these other gods frequently but the horns and slippers of Ammon only once. It's a meaningless reference anyway, at least if one is trying to associate the wearing of the clothes with a desire to become divine via burial as Pharaoh.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

On a general note of caution regarding Alexander's divinity, I note the following reference:

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven.

Does this mean that Christians consider themselves to be literally sons and daughters of god On the whole I'm inclined to suspect that that might be a simplistic conclusion

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

On a general note of caution regarding Alexander's divinity, I note the following reference:

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven.

Does this mean that Christians consider themselves to be literally sons and daughters of god On the whole I'm inclined to suspect that that might be a simplistic conclusion

Christians believe Jesus was an historical figure who was literally the son of God. Are you claiming that no ancient polytheist would ever have believed that a man may be born on earth of their gods? I can’t really tell from the above post, but it would be a moot point anyway. Whether Alexander truly believed he was the son of a god or whether he believed he could become a god is always open to debate, but that would be an entirely different discussion. The focus of this debate has been on whether the literary evidence supports an understanding that on his deathbed Alexander dismissed his lifetime’s devotion to the Greek gods and embraced Egyptian religion in order to assure that he would be worshipped as a god. You’ve claimed it was so; I’ve argued that it was Ptolemy’s inspired decision not to cremate Alexander’s body in order that he could be worshipped as Pharaoh. Your post yesterday implied that Alexander had already embraced Egyptian beliefs from the time he visited Siwah. I presented evidence that the Greeks equated Ammon with Zeus, yet you have responded with comments on Christianity. You will forgive me if I’m confused. I’m also confused as to whether your “simplistic conclusion” remark is directed towards me?


Best regards,

[athenas owl]

Poking head in here very briefly.

In regards to your argument Amyntoros, the one quote that popped in my mind and I see that Taphoi covered it was when Alexander reunited with Nearchus...

Arrian, Indica 35.8 wrote:
Alexander then swore by Zeus of the Greeks and the Libyan Ammon…

He didn't swear by Zeus-Ammon, but by Zeus AND Ammon separately...

Ducks head back out.

[amyntoros]

He didn't swear by Zeus-Ammon, but by Zeus AND Ammon separately...

Put your head up, it's safe. It’s difficult to explain, but the simplest way I can think of to describe the beliefs of the period is to suggest you consider Zeus and Ammon as two aspects of the same god. At various times Alexander made offerings to Zeus the Preserver or Saviour; Olympian Zeus; Zeus of Safe Landings; Zeus of Enclosures; Zeus the King, etc. These are titles or epithets, but in a way they are also different aspects of the god and you prayed to them for different reasons. If you can’t quite see how Ammon could be an “aspect” then try and think of him as a “different” Zeus. Yes, I know that sounds strange, but see how Arrian goes into detail about the “different” Heracles. (Heracleses? Heracles’s? Darn it. Is it necessary to make the name plural and if so, how does one do it?)

Arrian II.16.1-5 At Tyre there is the most ancient temple of Heracles of which there is any human recollection, not the Argive Heracles, son of Alcmene, for a Heracles was honoured at Tyre many generations before Cadmus sailed from Phoenicia, occupied Thebes, and had a daughter Semele, mother of Dionysus son of Zeus. [2] For Dionysus would appear to be in the third generation from Cadmus, along with Labdacus son of Polydorus, son of Cadmus; while the Argive Heracles was probably a contemporary of Oedipus son of Laius. The Egyptians too worship another Heracles, different from the Heracles of Tyre and the Heracles of Greece; [3] Herodotus says that the Egyptians reckon him one of the Twelve Deities, just as the Athenians worship a different Dionysus, son of Zeus and Kore. It is to him, not the Theban Dionysus, that the mystic chant ‘Iacchus’ is sung. [4] I think that the Heracles honoured by the Iberians at Tartessus, where certain Pillars have also been named after him, is the Tyrian Heracles, since Tartessus is a Phoenician foundation and it is in the Phoenician style that the temple of Heracles there has been built and that the sacrifices are offered. [5] Moreover, Geryones against whom the Argive Heracles was sent by Eurystheus, to drive off his oxen and bring them to Mycenae, has no connection with Iberia according to Hecataeus the historian; nor in his view was Heracles sent to an island, Erytheia, beyond the Great Sea, but Geryones was king of the mainland in the region of Ambracia and the Amphilochi, and it was from the mainland here that Heracles drove off the oxen; and that was in itself no mean prize-task that he set himself either.

No matter how different the above Heracles with their individual histories may seem, to Alexander, the hero/god at Tyre was still Heracles. He made offerings to the Argive Herakles at other times, but here was determined to pray in the temple of the Tyrian Herakles and still saw him as the god from whom the Macedonian kings were descended, as Curtius explains

Curtius IV.2.2 – 3 Alexander gave orders that the gifts should be received as a token of friendship, and addressing the envoys courteously, said that he wished to offer sacrifice to Hercules, whom the (3) Tyrians specially honoured; that the kings of Macedon believed that they derived their descent from that god, and that moreover he had been advised by an oracle to do that thing.

In the same fashion, Alexander thanked Zeus the Preserver when he successfully crossed the Danube and sacrificed to Olympian Zeus when he celebrated the games in Macedonia, but sometimes made offerings to “just” Zeus, and at other times to Ammon who was also seen as Zeus by the Greeks. However, in the instance you mentioned he simply invoked both of the names at the same time! I suppose it’s somewhat similar to saying “Thank you God; thank you Jesus,” although the polytheistic nature makes it a little more complicated.

Have I answered your question or I have I just made things more confusing?

Best regards,

[Paralus]

On a general note of caution regarding Alexander's divinity, I note the following reference:

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven.

Does this mean that Christians consider themselves to be literally sons and daughters of god? On the whole I'm inclined to suspect that that might be a simplistic conclusion

Simplistic? Yes and, on the whole, irrelevant. Christianity is an entirely different subject and the verse of a Christian prayer which you’ve quoted here cannot be taken out of the context of the theology of the religion. In its original attested usage (in the Gospels) Jesus is referring to his Father. In the wider sense the term is the father as creator.

Amyntoros has already pointed out that Jesus is considered an historical person. He is also considered, by Christians (not to mention by himself), the “son of God”. Few, if any, Greeks ever considered themselves sons of any of their gods. I fail to recall Pericles ever alluding to such for instance. Philip and Alexander did – tracing their line back through Heracles to Zeus. To the Macedonians, Philip or Alexander (or any other Macedonian king) was, essentially, the “head of the church”.

In Christian theology – and Catholicism in particular – Jesus is but one manifestation of the “three person God”: the Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This theological concept is as difficult, if not more so, than the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

I do not propose to go into Roman Catholic theology here as it has no bearing on the subject in hand. Suffice to say that taking the lines you have quoted above out of their theological context is as simplistic an approach as taking the “theft” of the corpse of Alexander out of the context of events in which it was perpetrated.

Perhaps Kimon, “about to set mighty conflicts in motion”, whose messengers to Ammon were turned away when the god told them that Kimon was “already with him” was enquiring about becoming an Egyptian god? I think not, more likely Callisthenes’ propaganda at work and quoted by Plutarch (Kimon, 18.7).

[Taphoi]

The focus of this debate has been on whether the literary evidence supports an understanding that on his deathbed Alexander dismissed his lifetime’s devotion to the Greek gods and embraced Egyptian religion in order to assure that he would be worshipped as a god. Your post yesterday implied that Alexander had already embraced Egyptian beliefs from the time he visited Siwah.

I have not said this. It was not necessary for Alexander to abandon his religious beliefs in order to desire to be entombed in Egypt. I agree with your view that Alexander saw Egyptian religion as a variant of Greek religion rather than as an entirely separate belief system. The idea that men might be spiritually sons of god, yet physically sons of men, exists in Greek as well as Egyptian religion. Such is the case with Heracles, Alexander's supposed ancestor.

In Egypt Alexander was proclaimed as son of Zeus-Ammon because all legitimate pharaohs were. He accepted it as a parallel to the case of his ancestor Heracles. He probably thought of himself as spiritually the son of Zeus-Ammon, whilst still physically the son of Philip. Zeus-Ammon was his Father which wast in Heaven, if you like.

I’m also confused as to whether your “simplistic conclusion” remark is directed towards me?

Not unless you wish it to be.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

I have not said this. It was not necessary for Alexander to abandon his religious beliefs in order to desire to be entombed in Egypt.

I have said it. If it was Alexander's wish to be entombed in Egypt and worshipped as Pharoah, then he would have known his body would not be cremated and would remain mummified. The mummification was necessary for Egyptian beliefs and is contrary to Macedonian funeral practice. Survivors were supposed to ensure that the dead were properly honored in the Macedonian fashion, and Alexander took great pains to do this for others. Adopting the Egyptian way of burial and thereby abandoning Macedonian funeral practice – if Alexander had so requested it - would have been a significant and demonstrable rejection of his Macedonian beliefs.

I agree with your view that Alexander saw Egyptian religion as a variant of Greek religion rather than as an entirely separate belief system. The idea that men might be spiritually sons of god, yet physically sons of men, exists in Greek as well as Egyptian religion. Such is the case with Heracles, Alexander's supposed ancestor.

In Egypt Alexander was proclaimed as son of Zeus-Ammon because all legitimate pharaohs were. He accepted it as a parallel to the case of his ancestor Heracles. He probably thought of himself as spiritually the son of Zeus-Ammon, whilst still physically the son of Philip. Zeus-Ammon was his Father which wast in Heaven, if you like.

Certainly a possibility; however, even if we had source information which could confirm all of the above, it would still not be evidential support for Alexander desiring his body to be interred as Pharoah, “in order that (he) could be assured of being worshipped as a god,” as you claimed.

I’m also confused as to whether your “simplistic conclusion” remark is directed towards me?

Not unless you wish it to be.

No, Andrew. I do not.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

The idea that men might be spiritually sons of god, yet physically sons of men, exists in Greek as well as Egyptian religion. Such is the case with Heracles, Alexander's supposed ancestor.

It was my understanding that, in the myhtology, Zeus actually sired Heracles. Further that his mother, Alcmena was the granddaughter of Perseus - also sired by Zeus (rather incestuous but, there you go).

It would seen a somewhat more than "spiritual" connection existed with Heracles. And, if indeed the Temenid myth of descent from heracles was believed, then Alexander is a descendant of Zeus in far more than the "spiritual" sense.

[Taphoi]

It would seen a somewhat more than "spiritual" connection existed with Heracles. And, if indeed the Temenid myth of descent from heracles was believed, then Alexander is a descendant of Zeus in far more than the "spiritual" sense.

Alexander sought to rival Perseus and Heracles, as he was descended from them both; and in addition he himself traced some part of his birth to Ammon, just as the legends traced that of Heracles and Perseus to Zeus.

Alexander had two fathers, Philip and Ammon, and no doubt Alexander referred his birth to both, exactly as the mythical Heracles recognised both Zeus and Amphitryon as his fathers.

By a process of elimination, it is my suggestion that Alexander must have referred the spiritual part of his birth to Ammon. I feel he may have interpreted Greek myths less literally than you.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

By a process of elimination, it is my suggestion that Alexander must have referred the spiritual part of his birth to Ammon. I feel he may have interpreted Greek myths less literally than you.

You may feel so but you don’t know.

I’m assuming you’re quoting the modern historian, Bosworth, from Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory (ed. K. Kinzl: Berlin 1977). To quote from the same modern historian you have referred to a just a trifle more extensively…

A B Bosworth, Conquest and Empire (Cambridge, 1988 pp 282-3)

Whatever Alexander's attitude before the visit (to Siwah), the consultation of the oracle made a profound and lasting impression upon him. It is evident that he regarded Ammon, the oracular deity at Siwah, as the local Libyan manifestation of Zeus. The equation is explicit from the time of Pindar, and in his contemporary account, Callisthenes referred to the deity simply as Zeus. Now, if Alexander viewed the god of Siwah as his divine father, he was most gratifyingly confirmed in his belief by the salutation of the officiating priest. He was greeted publicly as son of Zeus. This key fact, underlined by Callisthenes, is repeated in almost all the later sources and cannot be dismissed [...] By 328 at least the claim to be son of Zeus Ammon was commonplace at court, and it was resented by the older and more conservative of the Macedonian nobility…

Alexander did not officially reject his mortal father. Except for a reference to his “so-called father” in a letter to Athens, quoted by Plutarch (Al. 28.2) and of dubious authenticity, his public statements were laudatory, and one of the Last Plans unearthed by Perdiccas was to build a tomb for Philip on a par with the Pyramids (Diod. XVIII.4.5). Like Heracles, who acknowledged both Amphityon and Zeus, he could claim both a divine and a human paternity. Yet it seems clear that Alexander came to believe in Zeus Ammon as his actual father and expected the relationship to be recognised publicly.

I do not have the book you have quoted and Conquest is ten years the more recent, but I would think it safe to assume that the author’s view will have altered little in that time. Perhaps a little more of what the author wrote might have shed a little more light on his views of Alexander’s divinity in the chapter you’ve selected that single sentence from.