Itinerarium Alexandri

[marcus]

It's peculiar to me how, in the case of Philip's death, most people agree "cui bono" is sufficient to make Alexander's involvement a near certainty. In Alexander's case on the other hand, even the two previous assassination attempts mean little to nothing. Cui bono? No one, apparently. Not Antipater, as he surely had no reason to fear Alexander. Not the generals, as there was neither wealth nor power to gain from Alexander's death. And not the soldiers, as they surely loved their delusional, murderous, orientalising king. As did the Persians, the Greeks and the many other peoples who got a taste of Alexander's benevolent rule.

I'd say "some people" rather than "most people". But it is an interesting point you make, and I confess I hadn't looked at it that way before.

Of course, Antipater's 'fear' is what even the ancient authors cited as the reason why he arranged, or condoned, Alexander's death:

First of all, the deaths of Parmenion and Philotas, and Alexander of Lyncestis, had alarmed Antipater (Diodorus 17.118.1; Justin 12.14.1; Plutarch Alexander 49.8; and the Liber de Morte 88)

Second, Antipater feared that he had been summoned to Babylon to face execution (Justin 12.14.5; Dio Chrysostom 64.20; Liber de Morte 88, 96)

Third, Antipater sent the poison to Alexander (Arrian 7.27.1 - citing the story, which he doesn't believe himself; Justin 12.14.6; Plutarch Alexander 77.2; Liber de Morte 88)

Then again, these were only rumours, and unfortunately the method of poisoning is so complicated and open to error that it makes it hard to believe. Still, there will always be those who believe that Alexander was poisoned, and there will always be those who believe he wasn't. As you say:

Without hard evidence - an examined corpse - all there is is just rhetoric.

ATB

[marcus]

Marcus there is no problem reading those things written centuries later...Mostly the events can be crossed referenced and outlined through histories Archeology and the likes.
...
Im not totally disregarding the books etc but 400 years later///Politics the way we tend to lean can put any kind of slant on anything we read.

I was being a bit facetious, but you did say:

Im having problems putting any value with anything that is written 700 years after the event...Regarding anything

Anyway, it was only a friendly pop - I do know what you mean, and generally one shouldn't take one source at face value without comparing it with other sources if one can.

ATB

[bessusww]

Absolutely Marcus

I thoroughly understand your leanings towards...Arian etc..And as wed accept a good reference of starting. But I take the Bible and other religious works of fiction...

Its fare to say the Bible had many original gospels etc and although its accepted Constantine was the first Roman Emperor Christian...Its also worth while pointing out that he doctored the hell out of it picked and chose the stuff he wanted in there to suite his own agenda.

I think the same can be said a little about the so called original sources...All these so called original sources will have been written to fit the Author.

I have faith in the sources based on Ptolemy but only so far as Im maybe in the minority whos convinced Alexander was poisoned...And if so Ptolemy and the rest were implicit in been involved or indirectly involved by cooming out of it pretty well with a large slice of the cake...All the sources in my opinion would dress it up...I doubt any of them would like to be under suspicion of killing the king...Who I do believe was still universally loved by his people and his soldiers..The final Mutiny showed that to be the case.

I accept we can read the sources read later opinions and arrive with our own conclusions...Finaly has anyone in Pothos been to Italy at Christmas Time...Im interested as ive decided to visit St Marks basilica...One thinkg I am convinced is that Andrew Chugg just may be on to something

[spitamenes]

I am convinced that Andrew Chugg just may be on to something

As am I. It is intriguing is it not? The pieces seem to fit well. The image of the macedonian star on the limestone block made my jaw drop. It definately looks macedonian, there's no question about that. and not only that but you can see what looks like a sarrissa, and also a dagger, all of which have been found grouped together in images inside the tomb of Phillip. Does anyone see any gaping holes in this St.Marks theory?

[bessusww]

Spitamense

I never ever knew anything at all about the Remains and or the histories of St Mark until Andrew Chuggs books raised the opinions...A lot of Scholars have down and out dismissed it.

I dont hardly know anything of St Mark but am aware theres things said he was burned.

For me its just too coincidental ,The proximity of the remains been found...The round and about time Alexanders body disapeared and St Mark turned up...And as you say the very obvious Royal Macedonian etches.

For centuries the Catholic organisation has made claims and about Christian Relics and the so called Christian relics been only seen or proved by the Catholoic Church. The biggest Con Trick is St Peter been burried in Rome.

Now for myself the Corpse has as much chance as Been Alexander.as it has not.

I forever watch History Documentaries and people regarding aspects as the holly grail of Ancient history. King Tutt gets far too much emphasis for my liking and as a historical figure vastly over rated.

As Andrew Chugg points out we may be running out of time but I do feel at least World history deserves the body to be at least glanced over.

In context we could have the pooportunity to examine and look at the mortal remains of one of the most famous human beings ever to have walked the earth...Fair enough not every ones hero...But upon the face of humanity the man bears massive

[spitamenes]

Tut gets his attention not because of who he was in history, but what we found of his when the tomb was opened. The wealth of knowledge we came across was unparalleled. an untouched royal tomb is not easy to come by. And even though he's not as historicaly important as Many others, the knowledge he gave us was priceless when it came to Egyptology.
And I agree that much is coincidental in the St.Mark theory. But I honestly do not know what the royal symbols of ancient Macedonia would be doing there of all places. Was the star known before this theory about the body was established? Or was the theory established and then during research the Royal Star found? Because if I was looking to prove Alexander was buried in Venice, and then, right where I suspected he was, found a Macedonian Star? Id be pretty convinced.

[marcus]

For centuries the Catholic organisation has made claims and about Christian Relics and the so called Christian relics been only seen or proved by the Catholoic Church. The biggest Con Trick is St Peter been burried in Rome.

Why is St Peter being buried in Rome a con trick? The evidence we have says that he was, and there's no reason to suppose that he wasn't. He was, after all, crucified in Rome, having gone there to preach Christianity.

ATB

[spitamenes]

For centuries the Catholic organisation has made claims and about Christian Relics and the so called Christian relics been only seen or proved by the Catholoic Church. The biggest Con Trick is St Peter been burried in Rome.

Why is St Peter being buried in Rome a con trick?

ATB

+1.... Also.... Marcus, what are your thoughts on Alexander being in st. Peters tomb? Do you think its all circumstantial? Or is there at least enough evidence to want a carbon dating and,or DNA test?

[marcus]

For centuries the Catholic organisation has made claims and about Christian Relics and the so called Christian relics been only seen or proved by the Catholoic Church. The biggest Con Trick is St Peter been burried in Rome.

Why is St Peter being buried in Rome a con trick?

ATB

+1.... Also.... Marcus, what are your thoughts on Alexander being in st. Peters tomb? Do you think its all circumstantial? Or is there at least enough evidence to want a carbon dating and,or DNA test?

I'd certainly like it to be true.

It could well be circumstantial, but not necessarily. It is certainly an intriguing enough idea to make one want a DNA test done. That in itself would be interesting whether the body were St Mark or Alexander, to be honest. If DNA testing can determine enough about a person, then even if it isn't Alexander it might tell us if there is a real possibility that it is the body of St Mark!

But if the Vatican won't allow it, the Vatican won't allow it ...

ATB

[spitamenes]

But if the Vatican won't allow it, the Vatican won't allow it ...
ATB

Well, the biggest hurdle I think would be the fact that the body has already been tested for reasons not involving Alexander. So when they were confronted with the question of DNA testing for the Alexander theory they were quick to say that the tests done have given them sufficiant information and that they see no need to do any further testing. I think if they were given enough good reasons to do further tests they might change they're mind. I think it would be positive for the basilica either way it turns out. If it comes back as dated to the times of Alexander then they could very well have sole possession of argueably the greatest conquerer in history. If it comes back dated as at a later time then it would solidify that St. Mark is buried in his rightful place. A Win,Win so to say. Hopefully they will be convinced in the future so we can either put the theory to rest, or start making travel arrangements!

[marcus]

But if the Vatican won't allow it, the Vatican won't allow it ...
ATB

Well, the biggest hurdle I think would be the fact that the body has already been tested for reasons not involving Alexander. So when they were confronted with the question of DNA testing for the Alexander theory they were quick to say that the tests done have given them sufficiant information and that they see no need to do any further testing. I think if they were given enough good reasons to do further tests they might change they're mind. I think it would be positive for the basilica either way it turns out. If it comes back as dated to the times of Alexander then they could very well have sole possession of argueably the greatest conquerer in history. If it comes back dated as at a later time then it would solidify that St. Mark is buried in his rightful place. A Win,Win so to say. Hopefully they will be convinced in the future so we can either put the theory to rest, or start making travel arrangements!

Well, yes, but we are talking about the body of a saint, here, and the Catholic Church is quite touchy about such things. I doubt they've ever tested it.

After all, if it turned out that it couldn't possibly be St Mark, for whatever reason, then doesn't that shake one of the foundations of the Catholic faith, not least because the Church has been saying it's St Mark for so many hundreds of years.

I think they would need a much more enlightened pope than any the RC Church has had for a very long time.

ATB

[bessusww]

Absolutely Right Marcus

Its wrong to say testing the remains is win win Situation for the Roamn Catholoics..Were the remains to be dated Alexander it doesn not quite fit into Roman Catholic Christianity..That a claimed St Mark is actually the Mortal remains of what the Christian Church would call a pagan Idol.

I guess it is in theory disproving a foundational root of this Faith...The further science get with developments then i feel the further we would ever get from testing these things..All we get is excuses and that the tests dome were enough and such tests I may add were and have only ever been done by the innersanctums..Briefly was the Turin Shroud tested. No evidence for St Peter has ever been shown nor clairifed by external experts.

As pointed out St Peter been Crucified in Rome...How does that mount up too him been Burried there..Peter was the Second Jesud and having been Crucified in Rome would the Christains really have him burried there...Until independent Scientists can varify any of these Relics as an Agnostic ill assume them all to be fake.

Proof of any pudding is in the eating..Not by way of talk

[spitamenes]

Were the remains to be dated Alexander it doesn not quite fit into Roman Catholic Christianity..That a claimed St Mark is actually the Mortal remains of what the Christian Church would call a pagan Idol.

Pagan Idol or not, I don't believe there is any foundation on earth that wouldn't be absolutely thrilled to have the body of Alexander the Great. What a circus it would be, and Id have front row seats. The procurator of St.Marks basilica published a statement declaring that they see no need for any further examination of the remains. But it seems the exam was done a very long time ago.

Marcus, I think your right about the Vatican. They tend to stick to they're guns on these things.

Bessusww, There's too many factors I didn't take into account. So yes, it is apperently not a win win.

[marcus]

As pointed out St Peter been Crucified in Rome...How does that mount up too him been Burried there..Peter was the Second Jesud and having been Crucified in Rome would the Christains really have him burried there...Until independent Scientists can varify any of these Relics as an Agnostic ill assume them all to be fake.

I consider myself an agnostic, as well, but I have to say that I won't immediately assume that any remains are fake. I do accept the point you're making, though.

The thing is, that there is no reason why St Peter wouldn't have been buried in Rome - I don't think there's any reason why his body would have had to have been returned to Judaea. I'm also not sure whether he was ever considered a "second Jesus" - he was one of many apostles who were sent out into the world to preach the new religion, but I don't think he was ever considered their "leader" (then again, I haven't read "The Acts of the Apostles" so I might be wrong about that).

Still, I would consider it more than likely that, after his execution, those in Rome who had been converted to the new religion took his body away to be buried; and it is no surprise that, in time, a church was built over the place where he was buried (or a church was built and his remains were transhumed). Graves were marked, so it is unlikely that they would have chosen the wrong body; and I don't know of any reason why the Romans would have prevented his burial, or the marking of his grave.

So on that basis I am happy to accept that it really is Saint Peter. Perhaps I'm just not as sceptical as you are!

Hmm, rather getting away from Alexander, isn't it?

ATB

[bessusww]

Marcus

Agreed Were getting off subject...But realistically its all very much inter connected..As Andrew Chugg said, And to be very honest were it not for him I would have absolutely no Idea of the St Marks body and the connections with Alexander.

I was going along with the Idea that if Alexander were to be found its more than Likely Alexandria would be the place...But Alexandria the trail has gone cold as from the period that it went missing .


We have many books all theroies and newer variations of the sources with additions here and there...But Andrews Theory is new and could be groundbreaking I think maybe you would accept that.

The last test was decades ago before all the leaps foreward with Technology and Science at a time maybe when the Science was a little more ignorant and no offence so were the peoples...The only real reason Ive come across for things not been broved or tested is solely theres something to hide .

St Peters maybe off track with Alexander but its all part of the same phoney claims made by the Catholic Church.

Godly Claims and Son of Gods...Im pretty sure Alexander believed he was from a god with his mothers influence and the way he excelled must have convinced even him even if it may have been propogandist spin.

Many claim and can claim to be gods but in my opinion none can and have proved it...Religion does put barriers in front of knowledge as for me it threatens there very foundations.