marcus wrote:Personally, I think they should be kept separate. Admittedly, the soothsayer does provide advice - for example, when Aristander declares that the omens for crossing the Jaxartes are unpropitious. But he wouldn't be involved in discussions about military strategy or even political tactics (e.g. the reply to the letter from Darius) in his role as a soothsayer. He might be involved in those as an intelligent man whose counsel Alexander valued; but I can't really reconcile to myself this idea of Aristander as some great panjandrum. He was a soothsayer, who interpreted dreams and omens. There is no reason for us to give him another role.spitamenes wrote:I had a problem with the use of the word advisor when describing Aristander. But would the line have been blurred a bit between the "soothsayer" and "advisor" in the time of Alexander?
(And yes, the reason I say that is that there is no indication in those pesky sources that he did so. But if we don't use the sources for something they might as well not be there, in which case there's no point in having any of these discussions in the first place ...)
ATB
I think advisor is not synonymous with soothsayer but rather that soothsayer is a form of adivsor (a sub category). And I would take issue with whether or not Aristander would have been used for military or political issues. Alexander was a mystic. And Aristander was likely consulted before ANY significant engagement on the battlefield. In fact, I would be willing to go further and say that when Alexander finished consulting with his staff (generals and commanders), he moved on to Aristander for a final read. Thus, his last stop before taking action would have been with Aristander. And if Aristander said the omens were not in his favor, Alexander would wait until they were. So, I agree with you about the strategy and tactics part (i.e...the details), but I would just clarify on the consult part.
I think we also need to be careful about imposing our modern day compartmentalization ideals on Alexander. Also, as far as the sources are concerned. I haven't deviated far from the source material here. I have insinuated what appears to be obvious. If nothing else, it is and should be considered an alternative explanation to Barsine. As I said before, it is a theory derived from the implications of the facts as they were laid down for us in the sources.