A Question Concerning ATG's End...

[Nicator]

Greetings All,

Anyone Care to Guess which River Alexander headed to in attempt to Drown Himself before being stopped by Roxane??? Yeah, again, I'm aware that the veracity of this story is extremely suspect.

[Aspasia]

This is a guess- Euphrates or Tigris???

[marcus]

Anyone Care to Guess which River Alexander headed to in attempt to Drown Himself before being stopped by Roxane??? Yeah, again, I'm aware that the veracity of this story is extremely suspect.

Euphrates, for sure - it ran very close to the palace at Babylon, whereas the Tigris is/was some way away from Babylon.

Anyone who's read Andrew Chugg's latest book will recall that Andrew makes some interesting points about the 'veracity' of that story. In brief (and I hope I'm representing Andrew correctly here), we know that Alexander continued to bathe in the early part of his illness, so if he was gripped by fever it might make perfect sense for him to try to get to cool himself in the nearby river during the night, when he was burning up. The idea that he wanted to apotheosise himself would be a later fiction, but based on a very plausible incident.

ATB

[dean]

Hello Nicator,

The story is mentioned with great suspicion in Arrian, book 7-28-

It was of course the Euphrates- the river that flows by Babylon- Arrian himself even mentions the "story" is not to be believed- although I think that it has a charming quailty about it.

Of the top of my head, the Tigris would be nearer Susa but don't quote me on it.
Best regards,
Dean

[Taphoi]

As Marcus says, I have argued in Alexander's Lovers (in the section on Roxane) that the story itself is credible. It is only the spin that Alexander was trying to turn himself into a god that is clearly nonsense. Alexander's crawl to the river Euphrates is a key element of the Liber de Morte (the pamphlet on Alexander's death) which is one of the oldest and most important parts of the Alexander Romance. It also occurs in the Metz Epitome. I find Heckel's arguments that this pamphlet was composed by Holkias in about 317BC to be fairly powerful. Despite the fact that it was written as propaganda, many of the underlying facts within it are probably true.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[ruthaki]

Pretty questionable, I'd say. But if it were remotely true it would likely be the Euphrates. However I have to say, if he wanted just to cool hiimself down from the fever, why would he bathe in that muddy old river when there was likely pleasant bathing pools within the palace grounds? Personally, I think the drowning story is a myth that may have grown out of the other story of how he bathed to cool himself down when he was burning up with a fever.

[amyntoros]

IGÇÖve no problem with the suggestion that Alexander went to the river to cool down, but do you think that it is plausible that he did this in secret? Taking a look at Karl SoundyGÇÖs translation from SusanGÇÖs Alexander sources page we find:

[101] "But when night had fallen, Alexander ordered Rhoxane, his wife, and the other friends back to their chambers that he might more easily get to sleep. When he felt himself alone he dragged himself up and put out the lights. Then creeping on all fours he went out by the door that lead to the River Euphrates - which flowed through the middle of the city - and he went straight ahead, glancing about him all the while. Seeing his wife, Rhoxane running up he held still, hoping she would pass him by."

All through the rest of the histories we are told that AlexanderGÇÖs tent and his bedchamber were guarded GÇô by pages or at times by other soldiers. It seems to me that Alexander was never completely alone. And then, suddenly, at Babylon, he was? I canGÇÖt believe that he would creep about the palace on all fours either - if he was so sick and all he wanted to do was calm a fever, why not ask for assistance?

I confess I donGÇÖt find much credibility in any parts of the story, unless it is to be reduced to, GÇ¥Alexander had a fever in the night and went to the river Euphrates to cool down.GÇ¥

Best regards,

[amyntoros]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Andrew, because, despite any argument to the contrary, I find it too fantastical to imagine Alexander having to crawl to the river - tens of metres close by or otherwise. And I find the idea that his attendants would not dare lay hands on him too suggestive of complete despotic power and absolute rule - plus I'm personally convinced that some of his friends would have remained close by given the severity of his illness.

Not sure I'd agree that Roxane's bedchamber would have been next to Alexander's either. It's attested that in Macedon the women had completely separate quarters and to the best of my knowledge that was the Persian and Babylonian way as well. Plus Roxane was already pregnant so I wouldn't expect Alexander to have been keeping close company with her at night. Now don't jump on me for this, but my thoughts are that the ancients shared something with the Native Americans - that one didn't "visit" one's unborn child. Hence no reason to have Roxane with Alexander at night. (Nor for "nursing" him either, which is a highly romanticized train of thought.)

It's all a matter of opinion and this is a situation where definitive conclusions can not be drawn either way. Just have to go with instinct. . .

Best regards,

[susan]

Alexander's crawl to the river

This is romance indeed - and I think not likely.

If you've been in the Middle East and you know what it's like - where were his minders - where were the ubiquitous burly men sitting in plastic chairs with Kalashnikovs ? Look at any TV image of Iraq, Gaza strip... they are always there. It was the same then.

We've had some meals in Damascus with the police chiefs on Straight street, where Alexander almost certainly walked - even late at night there are shops open, itinerant sellers , police guards, resataurant managers, small boys loitering... And you can't get near Assad's hilltop palace for armed guards - there are hundreds of them, in leather jackets. Equipment may have changed but mentality hasn't.

Where were Roxane's eunuchs & minders? She was 7-8 months pregnant with the heir, and the empire wasn't at peace. How likely was it that she could roam the palace at night on her own?

I've walked around Syrian ruins dressed totally in black,with veil on, and still a lot of people have come up to me and talked.

As you know I've done quite a lot of work on the Romance and I think that this is one of the less likely parts, on a par with Nectanebo floating the boats in the basin. It's Mills & Boon, even if it is in the Romance.

[cynisca]

IGÇÖve no problem with the suggestion that Alexander went to the river to cool down, but do you think that it is plausible that he did this in secret? Taking a look at Karl SoundyGÇÖs translation from SusanGÇÖs Alexander sources,

But when night had fallen, Alexander ordered Rhoxane, his wife, and the other friends back to their chambers that he may more easily get to sleep.
That is the clue.....Alexander gave orders that he should be left alone.
It is entirely feasible that somebody was following him at a discreet distance, but this was simply not mentioned....as Rhoxane turned up.
Then creeping on all fours he went out by the door that lead to the River Euphrates - which flowed through the middle of the city - and he went straight ahead, glancing about him all the while. Seeing his wife, Rhoxane running up he held still, hoping she would pass him by."
Therefore, Rhoxane was coming from her chamber that was beyond the door that led to the Eurphrates.....
I agree, why was she running to the bedchamber in the first place.....did somebody send her a message that Alexander was in need of her...?
The Liber de Morte source also mentions Alexander's Will and his future plans......this would make far more sense to me rather than not making provision...although it is possible that Alexander was not expecting to pass away.
Regards
Cynisca

[agesilaos]

The story clearly has two aims ; to present Rhoxane as a devoted wife and Alexander as desiring immortality. These are simply propaganda aims and fit any number of scenarios, my own thoughts are on Susan's site, but contra Heckel & Chugg (sounds like a machime gun) I favour Bosworth's arguments for a Ptolemaic pamphlet rather than a Polyperchid one, accepting Heckel's arguments against the Perdikkan date suggested by some German whose name escapes me.

The date is irrelevant the incident is fiction in toto as has been mentioned Alexander would simply have ordered his bed moved to the pool beside which he had spent the third day and night (of the top of my head) of his illness; the midnight plunge is only feasible for the stated purpose and that is itself unfeasible.

It is a shame because there is so little on Roxane in the mainstream sources.

[dean]

Just while re-reading the story as Arrian puts it- I happened to read the note at the bottom of the page- never seen it before where it cites that Milns in his "Alexander the Great"- suggests that Alexander was given a low-level dose of strychnine.
According to an Wikipedia- this poison's extremely bitter taste is detectable in the tiniest of quantities- it mainly causes convulsions- impeding oxygen to the brain- or death via exhaustion due to the convulsions- this hardly coincides with the symptoms displayed.
Had never heard of this "theory"- anybody got any views on it? If this poison is so easily detectable then I think it hardly unlikely as cause of death.
Best regards,
Dean

[amyntoros]

Milns in his "Alexander the Great"- suggests that Alexander was given a low-level dose of strychnine. . . . Had never heard of this "theory"- anybody got any views on it? If this poison is so easily detectable then I think it hardly unlikely as cause of death.

Well, I do try to treat any and all poison theories as objectively as possible, even though I don't believe there was a conspiracy and I think that Alexander died of illness.

Strychnine was a poison favored by many a Victorian murderess and I know of one woman who killed her rival by poisoning a box of chocolates. I'd have thought the victim would have spit out the chocolate immediately if the taste was so obnoxious, so it follows that a low dose might have been easily masked in a large cup of wine - and someone could probably survive a couple of weeks if given repeated low doses. Although an animal lover, last year I had to "remove" a little mouse from my apartment - he had already chewed through paper-wrapped wiring in a ceiling fixture and caused a small fire, so please don't anybody berate me for this - it was him or us! Anyway, normal traps having failed, I used a strychnine-based rat poison and mixed it with crushed Oreo cookies to be sure it was eaten. The poor little beast devoured multiple portions over a two week period before succumbing to the poison, so I know it's not necessarily a quick death.

The Facts about Strychnine web site gives the following symptoms for a low dose (which could, theoretically, have been repeated).

Following the ingestion (swallowing) of strychnine, symptoms of poisoning usually appear within 15 to 60 minutes. People exposed to low or moderate doses of strychnine by any route will have the following signs or symptoms:

Agitation
Apprehension or fear
Ability to be easily startled
Restlessness
Painful muscle spasms possibly leading to fever and to kidney and liver injury
Uncontrollable arching of the neck and back
Rigid arms and legs
Jaw tightness
Muscle pain and soreness
Difficulty breathing
Dark urine
Initial consciousness and awareness of symptoms

Doesn't fit exactly, does it, especially as fever was the most prominent of Alexander's symptoms?

Best regards,

[marcus]

The date is irrelevant the incident is fiction in toto as has been mentioned Alexander would simply have ordered his bed moved to the pool beside which he had spent the third day and night (of the top of my head) of his illness; the midnight plunge is only feasible for the stated purpose and that is itself unfeasible.

I haven't myself made up my mind how I feel about the story, but I don't think that you can dismiss it on the basis of what you have said here. The midnight plunge is perfectly feasible for any number of reasons, particularly when we have only an embroidered version handed down to us which I think we would all accept is not the full or true story. It might seem illogical, but something being illogical most certainly is no grounds for dismissing it as fiction!

ATB

[Taphoi]

Well said Marcus!

Some of you may have noticed that Amytoros seems to be replying to a non-existent post higher up this thread. This is because my second post has mysteriously disappeared (not unlike Alexander's corpse in fact). Amyntoros has urged me to re-post, so here goes.

I basically argued that the gist of the story of Alexander's crawl to the river could well be true. I pointed out that most of the other incidental facts in the Liber de Morte appear to be founded in true events and that archaeological investigations of Babylon in the early 20th century showed that Alexander's chambers lay only tens of metres from the Euphrates (there are some maps from these investigations on my website www.alexanderstomb.com under Images of Babylon). From Aristobulus we know that Alexander became delirious with a burning fever, which was peaking during the nights. His attendants might not have dared to stop him themselves, but could have called Roxane from adjacent chambers. I did however point out that the conversation between Roxane and Alexander is likely to be fictional.

As some of you will know, I am a proponent of malaria as the cause of Alexander's demise, whereas the Liber de Morte is perhaps the leading source for the poisoning theory, so I am hardly likely to advocate its authenticity without good reason. Despite its essentially propagandist nature, however, it does have lots of strikingly genuine sounding details. For instance, the list of attendees at Medius' party runs to over 20 names in the version in the Armenian Romance. Two thirds of them are recognisable as major figures from Alexander's court. All of these probably were in Babylon at the time. The Metz version says Onesicritus had refused to name these names, implying that its author had read Onesicritus. It goes on to deny that six of the guests had any involvement in the plot. I think Heckel is right to see this as an indication of both the authenticity of the list and of where the loyalties of the author of the Liber de Morte lay. One of these six is Holkias, who is the probable author. He is only known in one other reference from Polyaenus, but that ref is probably taken from Hieronymus, one of the most reliable of the ancient historians. Another of the six is Eumenes. As Heckel has pointed out, it is difficult to see why a Macedonian source should bother to exculpate Eumenes after his death circa 316BC, but Holkias may well have been a member of the faction led by Polyperchon and Eumenes at the point of its zenith in 317BC.

Best wishes,

Andrew