pothos.org

This post would probably be best directed to Scott Oden, since he seems to the be resident expert on all things "Barsine & Memon & Alexander" so to speak. However, I am curious as to how others view Herakles the son Barsine is said to have had by Alexander. I know that of the Sucessors only Nearkhos came forward to recognize Heakles as Alexander's son. I have my own views on this subject, but would like other's views and opinons on why Alexander may not, if in fact, Herakles was his child failed to recognize him, if in fact he did. As there is so much historical record regarding Alexander that is lost one never knows what may in fact may have been actual fact or not. I have thought, and this is purely conjecture on my part that perhaps once the boy was older Alexander might have sent for him to have him trained. His early, unexpected death clearly precluded this. Whether he actually married Barsine is also another interesting subject. However, there seems to be little as far as I have come across it to support this possibillty. Although Elizabeth Carney in her "Women & Monarchary in Macedonia" puts forth the possibility that perhaps there might have been such a marriage or some sort of connection (perhaps one other than marriage) especially if it were one that joined Alexander and Barsine in non-accepted or tradtional Macedonian roles.

Please, do not misunderstand, I am not suggesting that Alexander married Barsine and then set her aside, from what I've read there is little, at least to this point in the historical record that would support this, but I am curious about Herakles and why Nearkhos was so willing to step forward to put forth Herakles' claim for his father's power and had so little support. Of course, there is always the possibility that both Alexander IV and Herakles were precluded simply becauase they were not full blooded Macedonian, and perhaps that is the answer. After all Alexander's successor turned out to be one least appropriate to rule, but most easily able to manipulate and was, also, not mixed blood.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in sharing their views I would appreciate it.

Thank you, Lysis

This is Ruthaki's purview, as well, since her novel-in-progress concerns young Herakles But, as to why Nearchos supported Herakles claim: Nearchos was married to the boy's half-sister -- the daughter of Mentor and Barsine.

Family interests and all.

Best,

Scott

lysis56 wrote: why Alexander may not, if in fact, Herakles was his child failed to recognize him, if in fact he did.

Scott's reply says all that needs to be said regarding why Nearchus supported Herakles' claim, I think!

As to why Alexander didn't "recognise" Heracles ... well, there's nothing to say that he didn't recognise him as his son.

Recognising him as his heir is something different, however. For a start, we have no evidence to suggest that Alexander actually married Barsine, and in fact the historical record implies that he didn't. So, for a start, Heracles was illegitimate.

Even if this didn't provide a bar to Heracles becoming Alexander's heir, as soon as Roxane became pregnant he had the prospect of a legitimate son (assuming it was a son) to succeed him. Whether this made a difference or not, we cannot tell. Illegitimate or not, it could be argued that Heracles had a better imperial pedigree than Roxane's child would have, which might have made him a better prospect as heir. On the other hand, what was the *Persian* (let alone the Macedonian) view of illegitimacy? If Alexander wished to provide a successor who would be acceptable to the non-Macedonians/Greeks in his empire, then a legitimate Sogdian prince might have been far more acceptable than an illegitimate Persian one.

All would have been thrown out of the window if Stateira had also borne Alexander a son; and there is a suggestion that she, too, was pregnant in 323BC. As the daughter of Darius, any child she had would have leaped straight to the top of the list of acceptable heirs. That certainly caused Roxane some alarm, for the first thing she did after Alexander's death was to get rid of Stateira.

However, and this is the main thing, the point is that Alexander nominated NO-ONE to succeed him. He had one child who was half-Persian, but who was probably illegitimite; he had a half-Sogdian baby (sex undetermined) on the way; and he possibly had a half-Persian baby (sex undetermined) on the way. Had he lived, he could have nominated any of them as his successor, but one needs to wonder which would have been the most acceptable to the Persians. If Roxane and Stateira had both delivered girls, Heracles might have been the best, or only choice; if either of the others produced a boy, I suspect Alexander would have chosen him (or one of them).

It could also be argued that Alexander was well aware that Heracles was, until 323BC, his *only* option, and that might explain why Heracles was brought up well away from the army and the jostling generals. It helped to protect Heracles until he might be needed to take a more prominent role.

ATB

Thanks to both Scott and Marcus for sharing their information re this post. It pretty much went along with what I thought, however, it's always good to check and see if there is something one might have missed or forgotten along the way.

Marcus' comments at the end about the possibility of Alexander keeping Herakles away from the army, generals, etc., is something I had been considering for a while. The idea makes sense and is in keeping with the researching I've been doing for my novel.

Many thanks,

Lysis

lysis56 wrote:Marcus' comments at the end about the possibility of Alexander keeping Herakles away from the army, generals, etc., is something I had been considering for a while. The idea makes sense and is in keeping with the researching I've been doing for my novel.

I should add, Lysis, that I'm not entirely convinced about this one; but I think it warrants consideration.

Bearing in mind that Heracles was probably around 3-5 years old in 323BC, it would make sense for him to have been brought up by his mother, safely away from the campaign. If Alexander had lived, then he would have had to bring Heracles into the sphere of empire in around 319-318, in order to begin training him in the manly arts. Whether that would have led to any form of nomination as a potential successor, that would have depended on (a) Roxane's and Stateira's children, and (b) how Heracles was received when he was brought to court; and probably (c) whether he took to the "manly arts" in any way that gave Alexander's marshals confidence in his future abilities. It would be 312-310BC before any hard and fast decision would have been made, and then it would have been subject to change.

ATB

marcus wrote:

lysis56 wrote:Marcus' comments at the end about the possibility of Alexander keeping Herakles away from the army, generals, etc., is something I had been considering for a while. The idea makes sense and is in keeping with the researching I've been doing for my novel.

I should add, Lysis, that I'm not entirely convinced about this one; but I think it warrants consideration.

Bearing in mind that Heracles was probably around 3-5 years old in 323BC, it would make sense for him to have been brought up by his mother, safely away from the campaign. If Alexander had lived, then he would have had to bring Heracles into the sphere of empire in around 319-318, in order to begin training him in the manly arts. Whether that would have led to any form of nomination as a potential successor, that would have depended on (a) Roxane's and Stateira's children, and (b) how Heracles was received when he was brought to court; and probably (c) whether he took to the "manly arts" in any way that gave Alexander's marshals confidence in his future abilities. It would be 312-310BC before any hard and fast decision would have been made, and then it would have been subject to change.

ATB

Thanks Marcus for your thoughts:

Although none of us will ever know the truth of any of this. However, my thoughts have led me to consider, at the very least as his son, if in fact, he did recognize Herakles as such, (there certainly seems to be no record of Alexander's ever outright denying any connection to the boy, i.e. claiming he was someone else's bastard) as he would not necessarily have had to do so publically at that point to bring him out from among the women into the world of men. Alexander had time to consider what to do with the boy, watch how his early years went, what he might have shown an aptitude for, etc. and if he so chose bring him to court to begin his training. Actually, keeping him in Pergamon away from the court would most likely have been a wise thing. It seems to me the Alexander, that I have come to know through my reading, etc., was a man who kept his finger on the pulse of everything around him and watched and waited to see how things, military and otherwise would progress. It would make sense that he would keep Herakles out of the way until later.

If this would indeed have followed Alexander's line of thinking in some ways it seems, to me, at least, to reflect how Philip treated/brought him up. He didn't not begin to "officially" recognize Alexander as a possible heir until he had Aristotle brought North and set up school at Mieza and the selection of Alexander's Companions. Philip saw to the development of his early years with Leonidas, unfortuantely, we do not know if there was anything the same for Herakles, one could only guess, and that would be truly a guess, but the watch and wait attitude would make a good deal of sense. If in fact he would have followed the pattern his father took with him, then brining him to court later on or perhaps forming some of sort of "Mieza" for Herakles would have been possible.

Alas, we will never know. Too bad there's not some time machine....where's Jules Verne when you need him? Sometimes the lure of what might have been is just as strong as what was.

Lysis