pothos.org

Hello all,
this is a fascinating subject isn't it?
I can't help wondering whether Alexander's
successors (excluding the Ptolemies) cared
about his remains. I imagine he had been
intensely envied at the height of his power and it
is tempting to view his death as the end of his
reverance by most. Surely the scramble for the
empire would have been a more pressing
concern for most than his resting place? I find it
amazing that the body lasted as long as it did
and it is a sad reflection on his mortal
insecurities that his dessicated remains were a
curiosity for tourists and not cherished with the
love he sought. I think he is well and truly gone.
his tomb may yet be found, however I believe
Alexandria is a notoriously difficult place for
archaeological survey.

It always struck me that especially the Romance sources try to tell us how "careless" the successors were with the body once the life had left the King.I mean: in some versions of the Romance Alexander's body lies unattended for days before someone remembers that it needs a decent burial. There is this strange story of Olympias arranging a banquet to commemorate Alexander's death - and no one shows up. And there is muslim folklore saying that Alex was just put in a shroud and buried in an undistinguished plot of land - a grave just big enough to contain his body, nothing else.Of course, the (official) histories point towards the opposites as well. The great carriage for the journey to - eventually - Egypt. The odour of the body and its resistance to decay...In summary: our 'sources' suggest both reverence and honor bestowed on the body, as well as total neglect.What does that imply? I would say that the message is that Alexander was king of the "world" and that these worldly powers had everything to do with being "alive" and "here". Alexander was not a ruler of the "hereafter" nor a ruler on a more "metaphysical" level. He was a King of the "earth as we know it".But that's my interpretation.Best regards -
Nick