An illegitimate son?

[xxx]

But back to Barsine. Clearly Alexander was very fond of her, despite some of the work I've read by Carney et al. It is likely he met her while a child in Pella. He never married her to anyone else, but married one of his closest friends into her family, Nearkos. She was in effect part of Alexander's household and yes, she was 'his' so to speak, and he insured that she and her family would be taken care of by bonding her to him via a child. She was 'family' and that was the most honorable station he could give her. And if he married her to anyone of less stature than himself, that would have been an insult.I would also agree that Alexander intended to beget several heirs capable of ruling various parts of his empire. What he didn't predict was that Hephaistion, who he was so careful to protect, would die before himself. I believe Alexander expected him to rule the empire if he fell with Perdikkas. Note that Perdikkas and Hephaistion often worked together and got along, his #2 and #3 guy. But despite the chest wound Alexander knew would eventually take him out, the Gods played a cruel trick and Hephaistion bit the dust before him.But the best laid plans of mice, men and Macedonians...

[amyntoros]

Hi Paralus,

I don't believe that a marriage between Alexander and Rhoxane or Statiera was aimed at anything more than the immediate political situation. Rhoxane, in the first instance, to pacify the fractious Bactrian/Sogdiana area by dynastic marriage and Staiera purely for Achaemenid legitimacy among the Persian nobility.

Well, I totally agree with you about Roxane, although having married her I'm sure Alexander gave thought to the future and the "disposition" so to speak of any of her offspring. Have to disagree about Stateira though. Yes, it was about Achaemenid legitimacy, but if we consider that it had no further meaning than this then the marriages of the 80 or so Macedonians become pointless. Alexander had confirmed his legitimacy with his own marriage, so why bother with the others? Your statement is also predicated on Alexander not giving any thought to the future and I don't believe that of him. The Greek education of the Persian women, the appointments of Persians to Satrapies, the training of the 30,000 Persian "Successors", the garrisons placed, the cities founded - all of them demonstrate a man who was thinking towards the future. And it also explains why he was so extremely angry when he returned to via Gedrosia and found such gross misconduct on the part of his appointees. It wasn't just that they misbehaved - they had interfered with his well-laid plans and necessitated his rethinking them. (Personally, I suspect he had ideas of venturing to India even before he crossed the Hellespont!)

Now back to the mass marriages at Susa. How do they fit into the "immediate" political situation? If Alexander hadn't married the women to his Macedonians then eventually these women would have married Persians. If that was a problem for Alexander then it means he was looking to the future. And if he was looking to the future, then he was concerned about establishing a firmer Macedonian presence in the country even after he had left it and taken the army with him. Which takes me right back to the suggestion that he intended any offspring to become the new Persian nobility. A nobility that would be ably supported by the offspring of the regular Macedonian troops, btw. Why else did he want his regular soldiers to *marry* their Persian women (and go to such expense) except to make the children legitimate in the eyes of the Persians?

[amyntoros]

. . . continued

The Macedonians couldn't have cared less, and I doubt that the Persians cared much at the time. But if these children were to play significant roles in the future, then their legitimacy would become a factor. Alexander demonstrated that this was important to *him* - another example of forward-thinking. Also, what about the marriage bedchambers that were built for the mass marriages? Why go to such trouble for others? Methinks that Alexander was perfectly aware that his men were mostly reluctant bridegrooms even if they were not going to tell him - one generally did what Alexander said at this point in his life! However, there was nothing to stop them marrying the women and then pretty much ignoring them afterwards. However, the bridal chambers meant that they had to spend at least FIVE nights with their new brides according to Chares (Athenaeus 538 b-c) - and I'm sure that they would have performed adequately under these circumstances, knowing what was expected of them and how failure to perform would reflect upon their prized manhood. Why would Alexander do this unless he was thinking about the potential offspring of these unions and how they would fit into his future plans?

Also, I don't think that repudiation of these brides would have been a factor had Alexander lived. He showed no intention of leaving most of these important men behind. I think the women would have been left in Persia to raise the children with their own families and the Macedonians would have continued with Alexander (and their mistresses!) on whatever campaigns Alexander had planned. Sorry, Paralus, I'm not likely to be convinced otherwise on this. None of it makes sense in the context of an immediate political situation. And by the same reasoning, I do think Alexander would have eventually taken a Macedonian bride. It may not have been particularly important to him at this point, but he knew his Macedonians well and he would have done whatever it took to ensure their eventual satisfaction and their loyalty. Life, unfortunately, had other plans for him.

Best regards

[Paralus]

G'day Amyntoros (1?)To begin with, I shall evidently need to take more care with my argument construction in future GÇô beginning now."Alexander had confirmed his legitimacy with his own marriage, so why bother with the others? Your statement is also predicated on Alexander not giving any thought to the future and I donGÇÖt believe that of him. "Nor do I, but a re-read of my post might GÇô I grant GÇô suggest otherwise. I have absolutely no issues with the "Susa marriages" being part of Alexander's construct for the future. Self evidently the offspring that he wished for from these arrangements were to be the new aristocracy GÇô of the new empire, not necessarily just in Persia. As well, I agree with you reasoning. Which reason being to break the Iranian/Macedonian divide in the ruling elite. "Sorry, Paralus, IGÇÖm not likely to be convinced otherwise on this."I wasn't aware I was trying to convince you otherwise. As I said in my original sticky-beak into this thread:"I'm quite certain the marriages of the Macedonian and Asian political classes (or nobility) were aimed squarely at foisting a more lasting control over the empire. Alexander had endured quite enough of fractious locals harbouring ideas of independence. The policy can only really seen in the terms you describe: a heterogeneous nobility."And, yes, many of these officers will have accompanied Alexander on his next bout of empire building. If these wives were not pregnant when they left, I doubt it would have happened when they eventually returned. With no interest and enthusiasm for it before departure (as subsequent events demonstrate), far less will have accompanied these officers on their return. Again, I don't disagree with your rationale (Alexander's), I just don't think it will have worked in the end.The Statiera marriage (aside from finally conferring Iranian "legitimacy") was likely intended to produce an heir. The heir to the throne GÇô the one throne of empire GÇô that Hephaestion indeed would have protected in Alexander's absence (or after death) had he not unfortunately paid the boatman a trifle early (I too like "XXX's" logic here). Macedonia will have always had its "viceroy" GÇô in this instance Craterus GÇô but its king was to be an emperor (or Great King) of mixed Macedonian/Iranian bloodlines. Along with the ruling elite that would manage the day to day minutiae of administration and contribute to the army in precisely the same way as the Macedonian equivalent had

[Paralus]

The Statiera marriage (aside from finally conferring Iranian "legitimacy") was likely intended to produce an heir. The heir to the throne GÇô the one throne of empire GÇô that Hephaestion indeed would have protected in Alexander's absence (or after death) had he not unfortunately paid the boatman a trifle early (I too like "XXX's" logic here). Macedonia will have always had its "viceroy" GÇô in this instance Craterus GÇô but its king was to be an emperor (or Great King) of mixed Macedonian/Iranian bloodlines. Along with the ruling elite that would manage the day to day minutiae of administration and contribute to the army in precisely the same way as the Macedonian equivalent had done for their kings (particularly since Phillip II). In fact, it could well be argued that Alexander was simply extending his father's political practices into the East.Paralus.Ps: You're not alone. I too am unrecognisable

[amyntoros]

Sorry, Paralus, I'm not likely to be convinced otherwise on this.

I wasn't aware I was trying to convince you otherwise. As I said in my original sticky-beak into this thread:

Bad choice of words on my part - or perhaps I should have included another smiley face. Truth is, I enjoy a good and challenging debate and believe I am open-minded and am capable of changing my opinions (though others may see me differently!). Here I meant to indicate that the Susa marriages are an instance where I will likely appear stubborn despite any well-placed arguments to the contrary. However, I do appreciate and enjoy it if Pothosians actively try to convince me otherwise on a topic - it prevents me from getting tunnel vision.

As far as this debate is concerned, we seem to have different opinions on whether or not there would have been a single king of the empire after Alexander's death (if he'd lived till his sons were grown), or whether the empire would have been divided amongst his children. I still lean towards the latter, mostly because I believe Alexander had to be aware of the vast problems in administering such a large empire - one that would likely have grown exponentially had he lived longer. He had unbelievably strong convictions about his own capabilities, but even he had to have realized that he couldn't always depend on others to properly support him - events after Gedrosia surely proved that. It all hangs on whether Alexander would have thought a single son to be as capable (and ambitious?) as himself. Given the intensity with which Alexander tried to out-do his father, would he have expected the same from a son? Would he even have wanted a son to be as competitive and accomplished as himself - or was the glory to be all his own in that he created the empire, but it was to be divided dynastically after his death? Yeah, I know I'm into psychology at this point and it is impossible to really know how Alexander thought. But it's fun trying. . .

Best regards,

[amyntoros]

When this thread first began I had read a statement that Alexander had been married to Barsine - this was said by Maria Brosius in her Women in Ancient Persia. I'd never heard this said before and a discussion here ensued. Well, recently I came across this again - twice GÇô by two other historians, so I thought I'd add the information to this thread rather than beginning another and perhaps causing a duplication of comments.

First up is an older book (1968); Alexander the Great by Peter Bamm. Style-wise it is similar to the hardback publication of Renault's Nature of Alexander and is also something of a travel documentary with plenty of scenic photographs as well as those of archeological finds - including believed representations of Alexander that I've never seen in any other publication. All in all, I've found it unexpectedly entertaining, although a little bit dated. He shows a picture of a head acquired in Egypt that bears a remarkable resemblance to the Pergamum bust, and tells how the owner buried it in his very large garden in Silesia in 1945 before he fled to the west. Later he forgot where he buried it and has since died! I can't help wondering if it has been rediscovered since this book was published. Anyway, (digression over) on Page 21 Bamm states:

At Susa, Alexander married him <Eumenes> off to Artonis, sister of his morganatic wife Barsine and widow of Memnon of Rhodes, his erstwhile adversary in the Aegean.

That's all there is! No footnotes or endnotes in this book, unfortunately. Now, the definition of morganatic is: Of or being a legal marriage between a person of royal or noble birth and a partner of lower rank, in which it is agreed that no titles or estates of the royal or noble partner are to be shared by the partner of inferior rank nor by any of the offspring of the marriage. I assume that Bamm believes it to have been morganatic because of the events after Alexander's death, but I have no idea why he calls it a marriage in the first place.

The next book is much more informative, Daniel Ogden's Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties. Pages 42-43 give us this:

Parmenion advised Alexander in 334 to marry and get an heir before embarking on his Asian expedition. Both he and Antipater had daughters to offer him, but both were refused. Parmenion's advice was clearly self-interested: perhaps he used premises similar to AttalusGÇÖ and argued that Alexander had to marry before leaving Macedon on the grounds that otherwise "legitimate", i.e. Macedonian, brides would not thenceforth be available to him.

After this rebuff Parmenion apparently limited his ambitions and became more successful in his marital advice. In 332 Alexander took on Barsine, the Hellenized daughter of the Persian noble Artabazus. Plutarch tells that this was "with Parmenion urging Alexander on", as Aristobulus says, to have sex with (hapsasthai) a beautiful and noble woman. Hapsasthai is an odd word to use, and Plutarch may not think that Parmenion actually advised marriage, for he goes on to say "Nor did Alexander know any other woman before his marrying, except for Barsine." But if advice was given at all, it must have been not merely to take a lover, but to beget (necessarily legitimate) heirs. Barsine may initially have been a creature of Parmenion's, for she had fallen into his hands after the Battle of Issus. We cannot deny her the title "wife" on the grounds that she was oriental and a captive: Roxane and Stateira were both these things and both were indisputably married.

Barsine bore the appropriately named Heracles c. 327, since Diodorus tells that he was "about 17" in 309. This information is probably reliable because Diodorus is using the respectable Hieronymus of Cardia. (It is a curiosity that Diodorus elsewhere refers to Alexander IV as the only son of Alexander.) The date of Heracles' birth also tells us that Barsine was by Alexander's side for at least four years. By the time of AlexanderG's death she was back in her ancestral home of Pergamum, but despite the claims of some scholars, there is no specific "repudiation", whether to make way for Roxane or not. The best context that has been adduced for such a repudiation is her father Artabazus' request to retire from his satrapy in 328 on the ground of age: but her brothers, notably Cophen, and sisters continued to hold positions of respect in the Alexanderreich. Whatever the fate of Barsine, Heracles remained Alexander's only (surviving) son at the time of his death, so Alexander would have been extremely foolish to attempt to bastardize him in any way.

Although Plutarch does not make the point explicitly, his description of Alexander's relationship with Barsine does imply that her child Heracles was a bastard. It would be wrong to be led by the apparently innocuous and indirect nature of these remarks into thinking that here at least was evidence of genuine royal bastardy. We have no way of proving that Plutarch's assumption about the status of Heracles does not owe its origin to the successful arguments against his elevation to the throne at Babylon. We should again bear in mind the importance of reading all claims of bastardy against princes - direct or indirect - discursively.

A footnote to the above regarding the word hapsasthai is as follows: See Liddell, Scott and Jones s.v. hapto iii.5, "have sex with a woman"; the word generally has a connotation of seizing; cf. Tarn 1948, ii 356. Very interesting, don't you think? Here Alexander was advised to have sex - in essence "by right of conquest" (technically rape, IMO) - something that he refused to do later on in Bactria with Roxane. And I never really thought about this before, but why would Parmenion do this anyway? - this is too similar to the tales of Philip and Olympias encouraging their son to have sex with a woman for my liking. Would Alexander really have accepted such personal "encouragement" from old Parmenion?

It's certainly food for thought, although I have drawn no conclusions as yet. Think it's now time to try and find out why Maria Brosius unquestionably considered it to have been a marriage.

Best regards,

[dean]

Hi Amyntoros,



I am sure that Alexander would have treated Barsine with every respect as he did Darius' wife and his general treatment of the opposite sex was extremely good- I am sure his experience with Olympias had taught him not to treat women any other way...

Parmenion did urge Alexander to take Barsine as a mistress and it is unusual that he should not take her as a wife. Although she was not Macedonian- and maybe this was a factor that influenced him- at the time. And maybe he feared an adverse acceptance of such a marriage.

In Bactria, a few thousand miles away and a few years later, Alexander was introducing Orientalism into the court so Roxanne- so I suppose this would hoped to have fitted in better.(However it didn't)

Best regards,
Deam

[amyntoros]

Parmenion did urge Alexander to take Barsine as a mistress and it is unusual that he should not take her as a wife. Although she was not Macedonian- and maybe this was a factor that influenced him- at the time. And maybe he feared an adverse acceptance of such a marriage.

Hi Dean,

I think that the basis for Ogden's argument is WHY should Parmenion have advised Alexander to take a mistress? It does seem a bit strange that Alexander's sex life should be of such importance to one of his generals, don't you think? As written, it seems to be an encouragement to behave in an Homeric manner and bed a captive woman, by right - yet in other parts of the histories Alexander is shown to be opposed to this kind of behavior. And now that I've thought about it more; after encouraging and even bribing his soldiers to marry their Persian mistresses, wouldn't Alexander have done the same thing with Barsine if he wasn't already married to her?

As I said before, I'm not convinced one way or the other, but it is interesting to consider other peoples' perspectives on this.

Best regards,

[Coral]

I have seen it assumed in many places that Alexander packed off Barsine (pregnant or newly delivered of a son) to the far west when he met Roxane. However, all we know for certain is that she conceived a child with him in 328/327 BC, her daughter/sisters were married in 324 BC in Susa and she was living in Pergamon in mid 323 BC.This is hardly enough to conclude that Alexander banished her from Court when he met Roxane. Or that his feelings for her were very slight.

Why indeed would Parmenion urge Alexander to take on a mistress? (Parmenion frequently seems to be giving Alexander immoral or unheroic, "old-woman" advice anyway!) Unless, like Olympias, Parmenion was disturbed by Alexander's lack of interest in women - which sounds really weird! It would make more sense if Alexander quietly entered into a Persian-style marriage contract with a noblewoman that Parmenion had captured and presented to him, in which perhaps it was made clear that her children by Mentor would not be claimed by Alexander and he would reserve the right to decide what to do with potential sons with her. Given that later he had placed her father and brother in high and favored positions, and treated the family so well, it does not make sense to me at all that he would have treated a Greek-educated and quite high-born Persian noblewoman so poorly.

When he was dying, it was interesting that he did not mention his son Herakles, or refer to the potential child with Roxane, when asked who should inherit his Empire. Was he perhaps waiting for a son who would be Darius' grandson?

[dean]

Hello,

At the beginning of Lane Fox's biography- he talks about Philip and his marriage to Eurydice- and in none too many words stating that it was a forced wedding or perhaps on the other hand that Philip was head over heels for her.

Either way, the episode I think indicates the anxiety even in a king such as Philip to "do the right thing" and marry the girl although on the other hand, if she hadn't been pregnant would he have married her?

Best regards,
Dean

[amyntoros]

As far the Persian aristocracy was concerned, Alexander could take half the "noble" female population of Persepolis should he have wanted to.

Yes, but that is according to Macedonian attitudes. To all appearances Alexander would never have taken a captive woman for sex just because he was entitled to a formalized relationship with Barsine (a form of Persian marriage) fits in well with everything that we know about him. I think we have to look outside the box here and consider not just the Macedonians but the Persians, and also Alexander's non-traditional attitude to both conquered peoples and to women. Because of their long contact with the Greek world Barsine's powerful and influential family surely knew that the role of Greek mistress was most commonly that of a prostitute they would hardly have been happy for Barsine to fulfill such a role. And Alexander is never reported to have taken a woman by right of conquest which - for the record - is essentially rape.

After first being stunned by Brosius statement, I am considering that she may be right. If Barsine was viewed by her family and the rest of the Persian nobility as a legitimate wife of the king (according to the Persian tradition) then they would certainly have been happy . . . Alexander's view of himself would have been reinforced. . . and the Macedonian army would have had no concerns as they didn't have a clue what was really going on! As long as it wasn't a marriage in the Macedonian tradition they wouldn't have recognized it. . .

No real Macedonian Baron would have - as an heir - offspring begotten from an Arcadian, Byzantine or Thracian let alone a Bactrian.

All too true, Paralus, and Alexander surely knew this. However, I think he considered the future and the administration of his empire in far more detail than we suspect. (The only thing he didn't anticipate was Hephaistion's death and his own!) I don't think he ever intended a single son to rule his entire empire, that accomplishment being reserved only for him. Consider his seeming intentions before the death of Hephaistion - Craterus was to be regent of Macedonia and surely Hephaistion, as Chilliarch, was to be regent in Persia. The concerns of the Macedonian army would no longer to be paramount in Persia. Alexander had already trained 30,000 young Persian soldiers in the Macedonian fashion and he intended to raise the half-Persian offspring of the army *in* Persia

[Fiona]

Very interesting thread, glad you resurrected it. If I might just backtrack to one of your earlier posts:

A footnote to the above regarding the word hapsasthai is as follows: See Liddell, Scott and Jones s.v. hapto iii.5, "have sex with a woman"; the word generally has a connotation of seizing; cf. Tarn 1948, ii 356. Very interesting, don't you think? Here Alexander was advised to have sex - in essence "by right of conquest" (technically rape, IMO) - something that he refused to do later on in Bactria with Roxane. And I never really thought about this before, but why would Parmenion do this anyway? - this is too similar to the tales of Philip and Olympias encouraging their son to have sex with a woman for my liking. Would Alexander really have accepted such personal "encouragement" from old Parmenion?

Might not the important emphasis here not be the seizing part, but the 'with a woman' part? If so, Parmenion's motive would surely have been to weaken the bond between Alexander and Hephaistion. He would not have been so interested in promoting Barsine as such, but, noticing Alexander actually talking to a woman, ie his old friend Barsine, he encouraged Alexander in this.
Fiona

[Semiramis]

Regarding Parmenion's advice to Alexander about Barsine -

I wonder how familiar Parmenion was with Persian customs? He had been Philip's main man for a long time and leading troops of the Asian expedition while Philip was still alive. It's almost a sure bet that he personally knew Artabazus when the Persian was a guest in Philip's court. Parmenion would've been aware of Artabazus' positive reputation with Greek mercenaries as well.

Could wise, cautious old Parmenion have been envisaging an alliance with Barsine's powerful family at a crucial stage of Alexander's campaign? For Macedonians, any relationship with Barsine would've been on the level of "sleeping with" her as the spoils of war. But for Barsine's family, the relationship may have been seen as much more honourable, as Amyntoros (Brosius) suggested? Perhaps that explains Plutarch's choice of word? If we assume his views are from entirely the Macedonian point of view here or even leaning towards Greek understanding of marriage as monogamous.

As for Barsine being the "first woman" Alexander had been with, - whether he is writing about Alexander or not, does Plutarch not come across rather prudish and anti-sex? Notice how he is usually telling stories about Alexander refusing sex and/or doing something "honourable" and "virtuous" when he is clearly about to have sex. The stories of Alexander refusing the slave boys in Athens or the Athenian hetaira his Mum kindly hired for him come to mind. In Moralia Alexander is swearing off a slave girl he was attracted to, when he has learned that she was his friend's current squeeze. The story of marrying Roxane rather than just "taking" her is also all about highlighting Alexander's virtue. So, perhaps Plutarch felt that stating that Barsine was Alexander's first, enhanced his "virtue"? So much conjecture... Feel free to knock down...

Related - I wanted to ask how many people believe Curtius' story of Alexander selecting someone to sleep with from a parading harem hen such a thing took his fancy? Why/why not?

[marcus]

Might not the important emphasis here not be the seizing part, but the 'with a woman' part? If so, Parmenion's motive would surely have been to weaken the bond between Alexander and Hephaistion. He would not have been so interested in promoting Barsine as such, but, noticing Alexander actually talking to a woman, ie his old friend Barsine, he encouraged Alexander in this.
Fiona

Woah! That's a bit of a leap, isn't it? "Surely" to have been to weaken the bond between Alexander and Hephaistion? There's no evidence that Parmenion had the slightest problem with whatever bond those two had (and let's not forget that the nature of that bond is far from being clear).

We also need to be careful of referring to Barsine as Alexander's "Old friend", as well. Sure, it is highly likely that she was in Macedonia with the rest of her family, and it is very possible that she and Alexander met (although not definite); but it's another big leap to refer to them as old friends.

ATB