All about Alexander the Great
https://pothos.org/forum/
Thanks for the link, Cyrus. I have to say that I'm somewhat dubious - how do they know it's Alexander, and by Lysippos? To be honest, it looks more like Augustus to me!Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23376
No, I'd think not. Its provenance will require a little more to trace other than the place in which it was found. One might as well declare that an Attic potter was at work in the Black Sea towns of the fifth century BC due to the amount of pottery and sherds collected. That it had more to do with Athenian grain trading would be closer to the point.Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:I think it is enough to know where it has been found.
Why? Isn't it enough that we know this region was never conquered by westerners except Macedonians and this is certainly not an Iranian statue? Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander, in fact it has been found in a Greek/Macedonian temple, including several other ancient objects.No, I'd think not.
Susa, as the major capital of the Persian empire, was the most important and largest city in that period, capturing this city meant conquering the whole of the huge Persian empire, I don't know why people think Babylon could be just important for Alexander!!Alexander, according to the sources, did not overly bother himself with Susa. That is not to say he did not spend time there. He travelled the old Persian capitals over his last eighteen months. Even so, Babylon would have been the city of the court.
I still don't see that it automatically follows that the statue was made by Lysippus. As you said, the region was never conquered except by the Macedonians - which means that it could have been made any time during the Seleucid period, could it not?Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:Why? Isn't it enough that we know this region was never conquered by westerners except Macedonians and this is certainly not an Iranian statue? Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander, in fact it has been found in a Greek/Macedonian temple, including several other ancient objects.
As in the image on this site? Good call, by the way. I didn't make the connection myself, but something bothered me about the mouth on the bronze - the upper lip seems just a little too thin for Alexander. It is, however, a good match for Seleucus.Phoebus wrote:I actually think it looks like good old Seleucos, myself...
The Seleucid angle has been addressed adequately. You ignore it with "Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander..." Such as?Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:Why? Isn't it enough that we know this region was never conquered by westerners except Macedonians and this is certainly not an Iranian statue? Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander, in fact it has been found in a Greek/Macedonian temple, including several other ancient objects.
Susawas the major capital of the Elamite/Neo Elamite kingdom. The propaganda/power centre of the Persian Empire was Persepolis. The buildings proclaim it loudly. Alexander, given the resistance he faced in Persis, recognised this enough to allow the sack of the city and its subsequent rape and pillage. He also considered the destruction of palace complex - the erasure of the Persian "New York Times" - a worthwhile lesson.Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:Susa, as the major capital of the Persian empire, was the most important and largest city in that period, capturing this city meant conquering the whole of the huge Persian empire, I don't know why people think Babylon could be just important for Alexander!!
Thanks, Paralus - this saves me the trouble of writing a post myself!Paralus wrote:The Seleucid angle has been addressed adequately. You ignore it with "Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander..." Such as?Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:Why? Isn't it enough that we know this region was never conquered by westerners except Macedonians and this is certainly not an Iranian statue? Of course there are several other evidences which prove this is a statue of Alexander, in fact it has been found in a Greek/Macedonian temple, including several other ancient objects.
Even if this were a statue of Alexander, what concrete evidence supports the bald assertion that it is an original Lysippus?
Susawas the major capital of the Elamite/Neo Elamite kingdom. The propaganda/power centre of the Persian Empire was Persepolis. The buildings proclaim it loudly. Alexander, given the resistance he faced in Persis, recognised this enough to allow the sack of the city and its subsequent rape and pillage. He also considered the destruction of palace complex - the erasure of the Persian "New York Times" - a worthwhile lesson.Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:Susa, as the major capital of the Persian empire, was the most important and largest city in that period, capturing this city meant conquering the whole of the huge Persian empire, I don't know why people think Babylon could be just important for Alexander!!
As to why "people" think Babylon was "important" to Alexander, I suppose the location of his court there rather than Persepolis, Pasargadae or, for that matter, Susa might have something to do with it. He evidently saw it as the "capital" of his new empire as a succession of Great Kings saw Persepolis.
Strangely enough, the Hellenistic monarchs from Antigonus, Seleucus onwards, also saw little need to settle themselves in Susa. Babylon, it seems, had assumed the role of Persepolis. Its proximity to the trans-Euphrates will have helped.
Which proves nothing, least of all that it is of Alexander and most certainly not that it is a Lysippus original.Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:... in fact it has been found in a Greek/Macedonian temple, including several other ancient objects.
Any time good sir, any time. My rates are most affordable: a decent glass of shiraz!marcus wrote:Thanks, Paralus - this saves me the trouble of writing a post myself!
