Complete Idiot's Guide to Alexander

[Fiona]

Ouch, to say that Philip could not inspire is a tad harsh. Unlike Alexander, Philip inherited a dispirited and crushed army, a kingdom on the verge of collapse and possible disemberment, yet he managed to both connive and inspire, bluff and act, and strategically and tactically move with an acumen that is dazzingly adept in retrospect. He did this by continuing to hold together the Upper and Lower Macedonians in the face of Illyrian, Paeonian, Thracian and Athenian thoughts otherwise, all the while inspiring the loyalty and what seems almost devotional following of the powerful nobles. In fact, I can only think of one time when his army lost cohesion and that was the first go-around with Orchomenus. Yet, Alexander also had his share of mutinies. I also don't recall Philip drunkenly murdering any of his companions, and even his brushing aside of Amyntas did not relieve his nephew of his life, nor nary a murmur of discontent.

Hi Nikas,
I wouldn't want to take away from Philip's achievements, which were of course considerable. I was thinking more of inspiration and imagination-capturing down the ages, really. Your post made me wonder if there was a pattern to spot - one ruler/leader or whatever who lays the foundations, pulls everything together, succeeded by another who builds on that and gets all the credit - especially if the successor's achievements and lifestyle are more eye-catching and flamboyant. The one that leapt to my mind was from English history, where Henry VII sorted the finances out and generally restored government after the Wars of the Roses, but doesn't get as many TV shows made about him as his son Henry VIII. Political economy versus six wives - no contest, is there? I can't think of any other examples off-hand - maybe others can - but I think it's the same kind of thing with Philip and Alexander. What Alexander did - both the good and the bad - were just generally more noticeable, played out on a bigger stage, more striking and often accompanied by theatrical flourishes which ensured they'd be remembered.

Yet, even more, let's compare them where it matters, was Macedonia better off at the end of their reigns than at the beginning? With Philip, I see no reason to unconditionally say yes, with all that has been already said, he accomplished in twenty short years a pre-eminence never before seen in Greek affairs. In leaving a kingdom larger, stronger, richer (in potential revenues if not in the treasury), and a successor maintaining a continuity of the Argead Dynasty that had been in place for hundreds of years already. Alexander, I believe unforgivably, did not overly concern himself with the succession, which is inexusable for a King (and Philip and Olympias even tried to assist in that regards too), managed to destroy the Argead Dynasty that had survived centuries and now passed out of his family, and arguably did not leave Macedonia a whit more prosperous than what he inherited (although I will grant much more glorious).

Absolutely, Philip left Macedon in much better shape than he found it, richer, more powerful and influential, and with a promising heir. Alexander certainly had even more wealth and power by the time of his death, but of course that had to be shared across the empire, it didn't all find its way to Macedon, and probably wouldn't have even if there had been an heir of mature years.
But of course there wasn't an heir of mature years, so the wealth and power become somewhat irrelevant.
Personally, I would say that it is excusable, and understandable, even in a king, to be less than fervent about the production of heirs if one is not that way inclined, but of course I do realise that this is a debatable premise.
(But then why, I often ask myself, did he not name Caranus his heir? Another son of Philip would have been popular, and he could have been growing up back in Macedon all the time Alexander was away. Perhaps Olympias wouldn't stand for it.)

It is my belief that it is a shame that Philip does not get the appelation "Great" (although some of the ancients gave it to him).

That's interesting, did they? It's a bit of a daft question, but who decides these things? Some influential writer whom others copy? Who was the first to call Alexander 'the Great', do you know? And how come it stuck, when it didn't to Philip? If every historian in our generation staring refering to Philip as 'Philip the Great', I wonder if the next generation would just follow that?
Just curious about how these things start in the first place!
Fiona

[jan]

The argument about heirs is ridiculous as everyone knows each killed each off faster than flies, so it meant nothing since Alexander's own children were killed at early ages...that is a most unjust criticism...There is no such thing as a prince having to be compelled to marry just to insure a successor...why Prince Albert is still unwed and has no heirs to his throne. So what?

[Nikas]

Hi Nikas,
I wouldn't want to take away from Philip's achievements, which were of course considerable. I was thinking more of inspiration and imagination-capturing down the ages, really. Your post made me wonder if there was a pattern to spot - one ruler/leader or whatever who lays the foundations, pulls everything together, succeeded by another who builds on that and gets all the credit - especially if the successor's achievements and lifestyle are more eye-catching and flamboyant. The one that leapt to my mind was from English history, where Henry VII sorted the finances out and generally restored government after the Wars of the Roses, but doesn't get as many TV shows made about him as his son Henry VIII. Political economy versus six wives - no contest, is there? I can't think of any other examples off-hand - maybe others can - but I think it's the same kind of thing with Philip and Alexander. What Alexander did - both the good and the bad - were just generally more noticeable, played out on a bigger stage, more striking and often accompanied by theatrical flourishes which ensured they'd be remembered.

Hi Fiona,

I can't dispute that Alexander caught on in the popular imagination far more than Philip, or few people in history for that matter. In fact, if Philip is even remembered, it is as Alexander's father, not generally on his own considerable merits.
Interesting point about Henry VII, he founded the dynasty that arguably was Englands Golden Age, yet it is the philandering son who gets all the fame. You might be on to something here, something in basic human nature? Or maybe Alexander, and Henry VIII, just had better publicists?

Absolutely, Philip left Macedon in much better shape than he found it, richer, more powerful and influential, and with a promising heir. Alexander certainly had even more wealth and power by the time of his death, but of course that had to be shared across the empire, it didn't all find its way to Macedon, and probably wouldn't have even if there had been an heir of mature years.
But of course there wasn't an heir of mature years, so the wealth and power become somewhat irrelevant.
Personally, I would say that it is excusable, and understandable, even in a king, to be less than fervent about the production of heirs if one is not that way inclined, but of course I do realise that this is a debatable premise.
(But then why, I often ask myself, did he not name Caranus his heir? Another son of Philip would have been popular, and he could have been growing up back in Macedon all the time Alexander was away. Perhaps Olympias wouldn't stand for it.)

Fair enough, but I cannot help but hold him at fault for neglecting what should been nothing less than one of his main priorities as a king, a king whose family had ruled for centuries and for which he must have known had a lack of suitable heirs should he fall and on a very dangerous campaign for that. I believe Philip sired Alexander 3 or 4 years into his reign, and he still had
Amyntas as a back-up (I doubt Philip III would have factored into his thoughts). As for Caranus, one gets the impression that Olympias took matters into her own hands, and possibly against Alexander's wishes.

That's interesting, did they? It's a bit of a daft question, but who decides these things? Some influential writer whom others copy? Who was the first to call Alexander 'the Great', do you know? And how come it stuck, when it didn't to Philip? If every historian in our generation staring refering to Philip as 'Philip the Great', I wonder if the next generation would just follow that?
Just curious about how these things start in the first place!

Argh, in re-reading I realize I didn't clarify what I was trying to say. While Philip, to the best of my knowledge, never got "Magnes" or "Megas", what I meant to say was along the line of Pliny the Elder, Diodorus, or Theopompus who called Philip among the "greatest".
I believe it was a Roman who first gave him "The Great", off of the top of my head Libanius or Lucan?
For giving the custom of who get's the "Great", I guess it just catches on, but maybe what may also have played a part is that they needed to distinguish our Alexander from a few others by that name, bad luck for Philip of not having too many Phillipos out there of any particular name recognition? Then you think of a few "The Greats" out there and wonder how the heck they got theirs, Theodosius comes to mind.

[Nikas]

The argument about heirs is ridiculous as everyone knows each killed each off faster than flies, so it meant nothing since Alexander's own children were killed at early ages...that is a most unjust criticism...There is no such thing as a prince having to be compelled to marry just to insure a successor...why Prince Albert is still unwed and has no heirs to his throne. So what?

No way. If you don't care about the survival of your dynasty, or your kingdom for that matter, when your family rules on the claim to be descended from Herakles himself, and has already ruled the kingdom for a few hundred years, and you know the odds are pretty good that you may not be coming back, the very least you could do in light of the low survival rate of heirs is to start early and increase the odds. He was a regent at 16, I think he could have, ahem, bucked up. As for Albert, he might want to consider changing his mind if he decides to invade France and the rest of Europe.

[Phoebus]

The fact remains his father will not have left Macedon without there being an heir.

What do we mean by heir? A child? How old would that child be? Because if we want to get technical, I don't see how anything less than an established man*, at least in his twenties and established in the kingdom, would be able to assert himself, remain independent, and have a reasonable chance of not getting killed.

That's why I made my comment about Perdiccas and Cassander. If Philip had died during one of his many early campaigns and a 2-3 year old Alexander of his was, technically, the heir, are we going to argue that he would have been raised to be a king by whatever regents and generals were hanging around the court?

* By man, I of course mean not a boy. I hope no one read that as "a woman could not rule Macedon!"

His father was marrying (and multiplying?) early into his reign - something, demonstrably, that did not concern Alexander.

To me, the defining question in this matter is how many of Philip's brides were taken in an effort to beget an heir to the throne as opposed to it being part of a greater political game? Alexander didn't have to worry about marrying to make nice with any of his barons or neighboring monarchs. Thus, if there really weren't a bride worth having (politically speaking), I'm not sure where the concern should be. I understand that the argument is the survivability of the line, but I'm not sure that this was a concern of Philip's, either. I think Philip was more concerned about the survivability of Philip, both in the internal Macedonian and broader, Greek and Balkan, arenas.

I mean, I might be reaching here, but I'd take it even farther by saying that any Macedonian wife would ultimately only become a hindrance to a man vying for the throne of the Persian empire. I mean, let's face it: absent an early death, Dareius' daughter was going to be the wife that would have most likely defined Alexander's reign and would have produced the true heir of the Argead and Achaemenid dynasties.

Ultimately, it comes down to the portrait and mindset I hold for Alexander. Alexander could have married Stateira before heading off for Bactria, Sogdiana, India, etc., but he would have been "taking a break" before bringing in the remaining provinces of the empire. I think that ran contrary to the man's nature, but I don't necessarily read that as a deficiency or as an error in judgement.

As for what such an heir might have been? Had Alexander fathered a son at 22, when he left for Asia, his heir would have been a whopping 10-11 years old when Perdiccas and company started worrying about who was going to rule what and how... and I simply don't see him being surviveable.

What nonsense blaming Perdiccas and Cassander for the end of the Argead dynasty. Cassander simply ended a fiction that had existed since Antigonus deposed and remade satraps after his victory in January 316 at gabiene. The "king" had been of no consequence since. This is much like suggesting it was his marshal's fault that the empire did not survive his death. Both are a result of the large vacuum Alexander left.

Was Alexander IV not recognized and Perdiccas not meant to be the heir? Did the other Diadochoi not act against Perdiccas because of his own ambitions? That chain of events started somewhere.

There is no comparison here with Philip's accession. Then there was a clear line of succession (including pretenders). Ditto at his death. By Alexander’s death we have a “constitutional crisis” due to a complete lack of a succession.

... which amounted to a "is it going to be a boy or a girl"? question.

This all comes back to timing. Alexander could have died at 23 with a one year-old son, and the same "constitutional crisis" would have occurred. The common denominator would have been a lack of trustworthy lieutenants. Philip's succession was only secure because he was an old man by the time he died.

Certainly the Makedones saw it that way. For the marshals (or barons of the traditional Macedonian power structure) all was opportunity.

Absolutely. Against such individuals, merely having progeny does not strike me as insurance.

But we've been over this all before...

Well, yes.

But we still disagree!

As for the homeland being better off for Alexander's reign, Antipater might disagree were he able to speak. Militarily he was seriously embarrassed when Athens and her allies rose. Such an embarrassment is unthinkable in 336.

Who won that conflict?

[Paralus]

How do we KNOW that "The fact remains his father will not have left Macedon without there being an heir."? You simply can not know that. Unless you are in possession of some document wherein Philip states "I would NEVER leave my kingdom without making sure I have an heir!".

I mean really how do we know that at all? He was getting banged up in battle right from the start. He could have died on any given day leaving very small children (if they were even born yet) to the mercies of other Argead rivals. But I guess it's the thought that counted..

However, although there is of course much in what you say, Alexander was still only around 26/27 when Herakles was born. Whatever the issues surrounding succession that there might have been later on (and whether 'legitimacy' was even one of those issues is, I think, arguable), Alexander had a son when he was only a small handful of years older than Philip was when he began begetting. So although it was longer since the start of his reign, because Philip was 23 when he took over in Macedonia, we shouldn't be too harsh on Alexander's begetting priorities.

I’ll deal with both together…even if separately (?!)

That first (“possession of a document”) needs to be allowed through to the keeper: let the silly ones go. The second paragraph and Marcus merit reply.

Actions, as they say, speak louder than words. This is something Billows (Antigonus The One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State) ignores in pursuit of his hero. Philip, by the time he’d duped Athens out of Amphipolis (spring 357), had married four times. His first wife was Audata (Illyrian) and his fourth Olympias. He continued marrying and, one would suspect, attempting to sire children up to his death. This, I’m afraid, stands in stark contrast to the utterly uninterested Alexander. It is, though, not out of place with other Macedonian monarchs. The problem prior to Alexander was a surfeit of potential heirs; after Alexander a desert.

Marcus’ questioning of “legitimacy” is answered by the Makedones after Alexander’s death. Whilst they would accept a succession that included Epirote, Molossian or Greek blood, Heracles was a non-entity. Just as Alexander’s unborn child was.

In the time Alexander took from accession to leaving Macedon, his father had married four times. Alexander showed no interest in such.

To me, the defining question in this matter is how many of Philip's brides were taken in an effort to beget an heir to the throne as opposed to it being part of a greater political game? Alexander didn't have to worry about marrying to make nice with any of his barons or neighboring monarchs. Thus, if there really weren't a bride worth having (politically speaking), I'm not sure where the concern should be. I understand that the argument is the survivability of the line, but I'm not sure that this was a concern of Philip's, either. I think Philip was more concerned about the survivability of Philip, both in the internal Macedonian and broader, Greek and Balkan, arenas..

Now here is an argument stripped of the emotive Alexander baggage.

Yes, demonstrably many of these marriages are for the reasons put forward. That they were dynastic marriages – in every sense – is certain. That last – Olympias – was contracted at a time of impending war with Athens who was busily realigning her alliances with the Macedonian out-kingdoms including Molossia. From this marriage of the “greater political game” came the feted and adored Alexander. He may just as easily have come from any of the other three as did Cynane from Audata.

Philip was definitely concerned with the “survivability of Philip” but also of the state: the two were indissoluble. For the son it was somewhat different. If the final words attributed to him are anywhere near correct he didn’t give a rat’s….

[Paralus]

[

As for the homeland being better off for Alexander's reign, Antipater might disagree were he able to speak. Militarily he was seriously embarrassed when Athens and her allies rose. Such an embarrassment is unthinkable in 336.

Who won that conflict?

Athens - twice. That is, until Craterus brought those troops Macedon had been denuded of to Antipater's salvation. Macedon was a rump in the Diadoch years to be fought over by competing dynasts - second string compared to their Asian "betters" - until Doson and Gonatas resurrected some semblence of Macedonian "right of control".

[amyntoros]

That's interesting, did they? It's a bit of a daft question, but who decides these things? Some influential writer whom others copy? Who was the first to call Alexander 'the Great', do you know? And how come it stuck, when it didn't to Philip? If every historian in our generation staring refering to Philip as 'Philip the Great', I wonder if the next generation would just follow that?
Just curious about how these things start in the first place!

Argh, in re-reading I realize I didn't clarify what I was trying to say. While Philip, to the best of my knowledge, never got "Magnes" or "Megas", what I meant to say was along the line of Pliny the Elder, Diodorus, or Theopompus who called Philip among the "greatest".

I believe it was a Roman who first gave him "The Great", off of the top of my head Libanius or Lucan?

For giving the custom of who get's the "Great", I guess it just catches on, but maybe what may also have played a part is that they needed to distinguish our Alexander from a few others by that name, bad luck for Philip of not having too many Phillipos out there of any particular name recognition? Then you think of a few "The Greats" out there and wonder how the heck they got theirs, Theodosius comes to mind.

Nikas, Lucan does describe Alexander as great, with phrases such as "(he) left no successor to inherit all his greatness" and "Greatest of the kings by Memphis worshipped, Alexander grudged to Nile its mystery". Elsewhere though he calls him "mad son of Macedonian Philip, that fortunate freebooter, cut off by a death that avenged the world", so I have my doubts whether Lucan was responsible for popularizing "The Great" as a name for Alexander.


We're told – and I don't think it is disputed – that it was a Roman playwright, Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254-184 B.C.), who first used the exact appellation "The Great" when writing about Alexander. There's no way of knowing if the name was in common usage before the play was published, but I suspect it must have been. How else were theatre-goers supposed to recognize who he was talking about? I mean, why not call him Alexander of Macedon unless they were already familiar with the other name?

Plautus, (The Captiva and ) The Mostellaria 3.2.775

TRANIO. (to himself, as he goes to the other side of the stage to call THEUROPIDES). They say that Alexander the Great and Agathocles achieved two very great exploits; what shall be the lot of myself, a third, who, unaided, am achieving deeds imperishable? This old fellow is carrying his pack-saddle, the other one, as well. I've hit upon a novel trade for myself, not a bad one; whereas muleteers have mules to carry pack-saddles; I've got men to carry the pack-saddles. They are able to carry heavy burdens; whatever you put upon them, they carry. Now, I don't know whether I am to address him. I'll accost him, however. (Calling aloud.) Hark you, Theuropides!

Best regards,

[Phoebus]

Athens - twice. That is, until Craterus brought those troops Macedon had been denuded of to Antipater's salvation. Macedon was a rump in the Diadoch years to be fought over by competing dynasts - second string compared to their Asian "betters" - until Doson and Gonatas resurrected some semblence of Macedonian "right of control".

Right, but is it not correct to say that, until the Diadochoi began their squabbles, that Macedon was not just Macedon itself?

We've never really thought of Macedon the state as extending from northeastern Greece to Pakistan, but until Alexander died, was that not one state answering to one king? In my humble opinion, if one is to argue how prosperous Alexander's Macedon was at the time of his death, the worst one could say is that his southwestern frontier did not have enough troops to put down this uprising we speak of. But if we're talking of the state itself, when time Alexander died the Macedonian kingdom had never been richer. It had never had a larger standing army, and, as mentioned before, her hegemon could have continued warmaking at the same pace without worrying about his treasury for generations.

Regarding the succession topic, I have to make an admission. If I'm to participate in this conversation more constructively, I need to educate myself (or be educated!) further on the rest of Philip's progeny. I'm at least familiar with Arrhhidaeus and Alexander, but I can't speak with certainty regarding their sisters, or whether the ones commonly listed in historical books are necessarily the only ones.

I say this because my first thought is to question just how driven Philip really was to beget himself an heir on the basis of his wife-child ratio. He seems to have married five times between his ascension to the throne and the birth of Alexander, but only two of the wives bore him children before Olympias, one of those being a daughter. Where Arrhidaeus is concerned, how early in his life was his mental condition identified? That is another item that escapes me. Furthermore, Arrhidaeus, the king's sole male issue prior to his departing on campaigns, was born to a Thessalian court dancer, was he not? Mental deficiency in his early life or not, can we really say he constituted a firm heir in the event of Philip being disabled later on down the road? Attalus seemed confident enough to make implications about Alexander's status, who at least was royal on both sides of the line.

Given all this, I certainly see a king addressing his political duties and a lusty man doing as he pleased in the marital sense, but I'm not sure I see a worried monarch looking to ensure succession. Could I be wrong? Absolutely!

[amyntoros]

The "instability" reference, which is always made, is made in reference to two things, I think:

1. Alexander's reaction to Hephaestion's death.

2. Alexander's growing paranoia about omens and portents on his return to Babylon. Now, there are various theories about which stories are true; but it is clear that in the last few months of his life he was becoming more superstitious, especially about non-Greek omens/portents - the increasing reliance on the Chaldeans, etc; and the way he acted upon them suggests an increasing paranoia - such as the incident with the 'mad' person who sat on his throne, and was executed.

One could easily produce a very rational explanation for his behaviour with regard to the omens/portents, I'm sure; but the way the sources present it to us is clearly indicative of an increasing paranoia. His reaction to Hephaestion's death was just ... well ... creepy!

I’m going to thresh this out, playing devil's advocate to a small degree, and then decide how I feel. So … to answer your points.

1. Alexander's reaction to Hephaestion's death. Well, my question is; does Alexander's reaction prove his "instability" during his last years? At this point I think not. Yes, his mourning was extravagant and excessive by our standards, but once it was over it was back to business as usual. In fact, as far as I recall, after the first couple of months, everything that needed doing was done during the rest of year long mourning period. Jeanne Reame's dissertation is still the most valuable source on this subject, IMO, as it put's Alexander's mourning into the proper context of the period. Included is a chart of "Alexander's Mourning Behavior" and each point is addressed one by one. Prior to the chart she says:

Arrian states that accounts of Alexander's mourning varied in accordance with the writer’s good-will or malice towards Hephaistion or Alexander, then goes on to add that some thought any extravagancy of mourning admirable while others thought all of them to be disreputable for a king. To Arrian's credit, this statement shows awareness of cultural relativism, or at least of his source’s distinct tendencies. Nevertheless, we must ourselves be aware when reviewing his judgments that despite the fact that he was Greek himself, he wrote some centuries removed from Alexander and was a Stoic influenced by Epiktetos' philosophy. Arrian may be more cautious about accepting accounts and more aware of hostile slander in his sources then either Diodorus or Plutarch, but his analysis of what to accept or reject is based at least partly on his own perceptions of what Alexander was likely to have done, and this owes to culturally-determined ideas about mourning. A clinician with experience in bereavement counseling learns quickly not to be surprised by much of anything. For this reason we will list below all of Alexander's reported reactions to Hephaistion's death without attempting to determine their veracity. At this remove, such determinations are beyond our ability. Our goal is clinical diagnosis (insofar as possible) not moral judgment, and our interest is to determine which, if any might indicate abnormal mourning and complicated bereavement.

In the end, in the sub-chapter entitled "Was Alexander’s Mourning Pathological" she concludes that it was not "abnormal mourning and complicated bereavement". Or, instability, as modern authors seem to prefer.

All together then, the evidence suggests that Alexander's grief was not pathological, since pathological grief usually requires some professional intervention to reach resolution. Alexander's bereavement was normal. Common perceptions to the contrary owe to a general ignorance about the bereavement process.

I can't substantiate the above without duplicating pages and pages of Jeanne's dissertation; all I can say is that she makes a very good case. And, as "pathological" and unstable are pretty much interchangeable in this instance, if one agrees with Jeanne – as I do – then the evidence in the sources does not indicate instability. Do you have her diss, by the way? Can't remember if you do, although I'm fairly certain that either Fiona or Athenas Owl has a copy.

2. Alexander's growing paranoia about omens and portents on his return to Babylon. Was it truly a growing paranoia though? It was neither the first time he'd been accused of paranoia, nor the first time he’d demonstrated dependence on oracles and portents. He'd been concerned about them since the start of his reign - there's plenty of early evidence for a reliance on predictions. And even that is not so unusual for a man from his period - augurs and the like abounded in ancient times, plus there wasn't a city state which hadn't sent emissaries to Delphi for an oracle on important matters. Due to his wealth and position, Alexander was able to employ seers of his own, but that alone doesn't make him more superstitious than the next person. The implication that he was becoming increasingly so towards the end seems to rely much on the fact that he had turned to non-Greek seers, but I tend to find that circumstantial. The Chaldeans were present; they were practicing; and they were purportedly reliable. Why not consult them also? In the Hellenistic period there is a demonstrable dependency upon spells and predictions by the average person - most of the seers and books consulted not originally of Greek origin - and this because the rest of the ancient world had been opened up by Alexander. Syncretism became common, and Alexander was first to embrace it to this degree. Now, I'm not denying his reliance on portents, etc., but I question whether this demonstrated instability. If it did show that he was "unstable" then surely it must also have been so for a great many Greeks in Alexandria?

There's much more that could be said, but I'll leave it for later if there's any interest.

Best regards,

[Fiona]

I can't substantiate the above without duplicating pages and pages of Jeanne's dissertation; all I can say is that she makes a very good case. And, as "pathological" and unstable are pretty much interchangeable in this instance, if one agrees with Jeanne – as I do – then the evidence in the sources does not indicate instability. Do you have her diss, by the way? Can't remember if you do, although I'm fairly certain that either Fiona or Athenas Owl has a copy.

I only snipped this for brevity - I thought this was a beautifully-argued post and I enjoyed reading it. Don't want to interrupt - just wanted to wave hand, as it were, and say, yes, I'm interested!
(I don't have Jeanne's dissertation - seen a lot of quotations from it, and I think I have some pages as pdfs, but never seen the whole thing in its entirety.) But from what you say she ties the evidence in with what is known about the processes of bereavement and grieving, to show that Alexander's grieving and the way he expressed it were not excessive by the standards of the time and given his own wealth and personal position.
I would just like to add that I think one's perception of how excessive he was - and therefore how possibly unstable - depends a lot on how one sees the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion. If it's 'just good friends', then I can see how it might seem excessive.
I wonder if people would call him unstable at this time, if it had been Roxane who'd died and had inspired such grief? I rather think that in that case, Alexander might have been classed with Shah Jehan, who built such an enduring monument to love.
They still might call him unstable, of course - perhaps everyone who has just lost their life partner is, to some extent, unstable. I can well imagine it being so.
Personally, I think that Alexander's excessive grief is evidence in itself of just how much he loved Hephaistion. I would like to quote Andrew here, if I may, who says it so beautifully:

Above all, it is surely incredible that Alexander's reaction to Hephaistion's death could indicate anything other than the closest relationship imaginable.

About your second paragraph - great to read, really enjoyed it, and I agree completely.

Fiona

[Phoebus]

I would just like to add that I think one's perception of how excessive he was - and therefore how possibly unstable - depends a lot on how one sees the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion. If it's 'just good friends', then I can see how it might seem excessive.

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't--but then again, I don't think it was ever a case of being 'just good friends'. Even if, like me, you don't think there was a romantic relationship between them, it goes without saying their relationship transcended ordinary friendship.

There was an interesting article the other day about how exceptional Queen Elisabeth's embrace of Michelle Obama was during their recent meeting. The story centered on protocol, the tradition of the queen's person being sacrosanct in a way, how unusual it is for one to have physical contact with her, etc. It even cited earlier comments by Prince Charles on how he felt he had been denied affection as a child. It's not a direct parallel obviously (since the Macedonian court appears to have been far more informal), but it made me think again about how alone a person in a situation such as Alexander's could be. Hephaestion was probably one of the very few people Alexander--a man who had seen his father assassinated; who knew first-hand the deadly intrigues of his own court; who very likely felt his life was more in danger at the hands of his own lieutenants than those of his enemies--could trust implicitly.

The removal of such a person from his life, lover or not, would have been devastating. If Alexander truly felt the way I imagine he did about the scope of his accomplishments, and he truly thought of Hephaestion as "another Alexander"--as his "brother", in my eyes--then any sort of farewell would naturally be on the level of what he would have imagined for himself: fit for a man who journeyed to the ends of the world, fought and defeated every sort of foe arrayed against them, scaled mountains higher than Olympus, etc.

They still might call him unstable, of course - perhaps everyone who has just lost their life partner is, to some extent, unstable. I can well imagine it being so.

They might very well be cynical, as well. I can't really imagine any of Alexander's lieutenants as very sentimental, to be honest with you.

[jan]

Oh good, I am all happy now...before I get too involved in this debate, i want to say that there is an imax movie on Greece downtown at the local science museum so i shall be happy to go see it so that I can contribute to this argument with that piece of data immersed into my memory tank, but in the meantime, I am so happy that you believe that Alexander should have begun breeding heirs to the throne at age 16 when he was old enough to create a new dynasty. For the time being, without the aforementioned film on Greece in my memory, I will suggest some of the following reasons that Alexander did not begin early in his life to start a family life. I am actually recalling comments by authors whose opinions I have read that suggest that he wanted to concentrate solely on his military efforts before considering home, family, and children.

However, in my opinion, and not due to the influence of scholars, academia, or historical evidence, I believe that one should consider that no matter how many children one has, one has to understand the kind of education heaped upon the heirs, such as Alexander's own education which no doubt influenced him in his own successors...and as his half brother was mentally deficient, it is logical to suppose that the Greeks even then knew of the importance of the right wife to couple with to determine the heir to a throne.

Now granted all that is speculation, but the point is that just simply breeding children does not assure that the right kind of person will be born. Think about the fact that there were many omens before the birth of Alexander, and that on the day of Alexander's birth, Philip enjoyed three different signs of favor for his own reign, that of winning a horse race, that of winning a battle, and that of a son born, all apparently on the same day.

The Greeks and Macedonians alike appear to be very superstitious or at least respectful of signs, portents, and omens, and as such, Alexander who exhibits exceptional intelligence at an early age is governed by a different set of rules than an ordinary mortal would have been.

I frankly think that it is his call to determine who he wishes to marry, who he wishes to be the mother or bearer of his children, and as I believe that somehow or other that Alexander is divinely guided that he believed that he would be led to the right woman who would bear his children, and/ or women. He had several wives as it turned out and most no doubt were chosen for that very purpose, to be the women who would deliver his children for him.

Again, simply a child is not enough when it is to a prince or to a princess. Royals had to marry royals as even Alexander would not even compete in the olympic games it is said unless it were against another royal. So how much more important a child, especially a ruling child, a monarch is to consider.

As to Prince Albert, again I believe it is his call to make...He has already fathered children so when it becomes an official successor I suppose he will have to follow custom also.

I just do not believe that giving a hoot about who follows you is so important when you are that young and believe that you have a long future ahead of yourself...it only suggests that he believed that he would probably last as long as his father at least, who lived to be 45 anyway, so in that respect, Alexander was a bit too optimistic about his own chances...

[Fiona]

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't--but then again, I don't think it was ever a case of being 'just good friends'. Even if, like me, you don't think there was a romantic relationship between them, it goes without saying their relationship transcended ordinary friendship.

That's cool, Phoebus - can I just ask, though, how large a part does Alexander's reaction to Hephaistion's death play in making you think their relationship transcended ordinary friendship? I mean, if we had no details at all about this, would you still think that on the remaining evidence? I can see how it could - the scene with Sisygambis is enough on its own, really, along with Curtius' accompanying comments - I'm just interested in what forms people's impressions of Hephaistion and of the quality of his friendship with Alexander.

There was an interesting article the other day about how exceptional Queen Elisabeth's embrace of Michelle Obama was during their recent meeting. The story centered on protocol, the tradition of the queen's person being sacrosanct in a way, how unusual it is for one to have physical contact with her, etc. It even cited earlier comments by Prince Charles on how he felt he had been denied affection as a child. It's not a direct parallel obviously (since the Macedonian court appears to have been far more informal), but it made me think again about how alone a person in a situation such as Alexander's could be. Hephaestion was probably one of the very few people Alexander--a man who had seen his father assassinated; who knew first-hand the deadly intrigues of his own court; who very likely felt his life was more in danger at the hands of his own lieutenants than those of his enemies--could trust implicitly.

Good point. I was stunned myself - but pleased - to see a pic of the Queen actually touching and being touched! (And Mrs Obama dwarfed her!)
Any royal person in any age is going to suffer to some extent from isolation, even if the court in question is informal. Macedon was more informal, but as you point out, it was considerably more dangerous! So the need for a close friend, the need for someone you can trust, is just as great for Alexander as Prince Charles' need for some hugging and affection. The loss of someone he could truly trust that much must have been devastating, and I wouldn't minimise it - but it's the clinging to the body, and refusing to leave go that make me that we are talking about more than a friend here, but a spouse. If it wasn't that, then the charges of instability start to gain currency, I think.

The removal of such a person from his life, lover or not, would have been devastating. If Alexander truly felt the way I imagine he did about the scope of his accomplishments, and he truly thought of Hephaestion as "another Alexander"--as his "brother", in my eyes--then any sort of farewell would naturally be on the level of what he would have imagined for himself: fit for a man who journeyed to the ends of the world, fought and defeated every sort of foe arrayed against them, scaled mountains higher than Olympus, etc.

Yes indeed, I can see that - his great friend as another self, and the funeral arranged of the kind he might have given himself. He was a generous provider of funerals anyway, we have that from other occasions. Yes, it's over the top, but that's just Alexander - I don't see any evidence for instability in the funeral itself, as I think you are saying.
Fiona

[jan]

Hello Nikas,

I just wanted to add to my above response to your noway answer that Alexander had to have thought about his succession, which frankly, I am sure that he did. I am also just as sure that others in the Macedonian army would have liked for him to have had their daughter be their bride, but as the saying goes, to satisfy one would have angered all the rest...so to a non Macedonian and a lofty princess of another ruling country the honor should go...at any rate, I mentioned the movie called Greece, Secrets of the Past, and did manage to see it today. It was a beautiful scenic film scripted by an archaeologist whose main interest is the island Santorini and its possibly having been a part of the lost Atlantis, and of Athens, and all the sights there to see. The only famous Greeks mentioned were Pericles and Socrates, and only in minor roles. It opens with a statue of Poseidon being lifted from the sea and ends with a reconstruction of the Parthenon and the statue of Athena. Beautifully filmed, very short, but a good video of the love Greeks have for their country. Gave Americans a boost at the end as well! Just great PR, nothing about Alexander the Great in at all. The narrator is a woman who starred in the movie Big Fat Greek Wedding. It was just a movie of the love of Greece.

Again, Nikas, I believe that each and every age has a generation problem, and that very few today can fathom what the times were like in 4BC. I sometimes am very critical of Alexander and then I remind myself that Alexander made his decisions at a time when those decisions were not only natural but apparently necessary to survival. We live in different times and have a different kind of programming in our systems now, and truly are not in a position to judge the way the Persians, the Macedonians, the Egyptians, et al lived and determined their lifestyles. The most we can learn from history is that we can determine our own fate and futures using their methods as guidelines only. We can only accept yesterday as we can never change it. It is a foundation upon which we build our own future.

No matter which personage of the past, I always try to remind myself that they are of the past, and that no matter what they did then, we of the present can only try to do better.

I personally believe that for years Alexander was held in great esteem and honor and then has been for some reason or other subjected to much criticism and an attempt to dishonor him. He was honored as one of the gods by the Greeks, and as such, is still honored in many nations and by a variety of means. The problem is terminology as god means so many different things to so many different people.

Nonetheless, his achievements are monumental, inspirational, and admirable...but his methods were often barbaric by modern day standards. By standards of that day and age, he was probably very normal and acceptable. If he had not done it someone else would have. The survival of the fittest...