Alexander poisoned with Arsenic.

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

aleksandros
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Boston

Alexander poisoned with Arsenic.

Post by aleksandros »

Somewhere i read about some people who think alexander's symptoms match arsenic poisoning. Plutarch rejects any poisoning accusation telling his body wouldn't 'smell' in the heat and humidity of Babylon, but that could be a side effect of arsenic, it preserves i read.
Moreover the acute pain after digestion, the vomiting, and paralysis match the symptoms of arsenic poisoning.
What i couldnt find is whether the unguish of a horse would be needed to carry.

Your thoughts?
ΤΩ ΚΡΑΤΕΡΩ
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Post by agesilaos »

It is true that the symptoms do seem to tally with the description given in the Liber de Morte but that is not so with the description of his illness in the Ephemerides as preserved by Plutarch and Arrian; there is no mention of stomach pains nor of vomiting only a fever and subsequent loss of speech and weakness. The asses hoof is just a picaresque detail to impress the gullible with the potency of the poison.

The symptoms given are so vague they cover a multitude of possibilities and when one factors in the purposes of them being so-recorded, propaganda of both sorts, then little of any clinical value remains. But plenty upon which to build castles in the air.
aleksandros
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Boston

Post by aleksandros »

I ve heard that the mere fact of luck of adequate information on the symptoms and their timeline smells like a cover up.

Truth is now that all the external enemies are wiped Alexander had the most internal enemies willing to act than ever.

And the mentions of the names of only that thessalian guy from the banquet and nearchos from all those who were near Alexander and the scarce info on his doctors names and their prescriptions sounds weird for such an important event.
ΤΩ ΚΡΑΤΕΡΩ
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

aleksandros wrote:I ve heard that the mere fact of luck of adequate information on the symptoms and their timeline smells like a cover up.

Truth is now that all the external enemies are wiped Alexander had the most internal enemies willing to act than ever.

And the mentions of the names of only that thessalian guy from the banquet and nearchos from all those who were near Alexander and the scarce info on his doctors names and their prescriptions sounds weird for such an important event.
This is going to sound like a very feeble response, but I have to say that what concerns me about this theory is that it hasn't cropped up before. It just seems to me that, considering the man-hours that have been put into trying to establish what did kill Alexander - leading (let's face it) to some very crack-pot ideas as well as many reasonable ones - if arsenic hasn't yet been put forward then it is unlikely to pass muster as a viable theory.

Then again, there are probably loads of examples of historical puzzles where people have got so caught up in more fanciful theories that they've completely missed the obvious ... not seeing the wood for the trees, as it were. So maybe ...

All the best, sitting on the fence as usual! :D
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
aleksandros
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Boston

Post by aleksandros »

marcus your right, i too wonder why arsenic hadnt been brought up before...
ΤΩ ΚΡΑΤΕΡΩ
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

The coma

Post by jan »

that Alexander appears to be in before finally being embalmed makes it appear that it was arsenic, and I believe that maybe Paul Doherty did write something to that effect also in his book on the death of Alexander. Correct me if I am mistaken about that. But I did think that only arsenic poisoning would be likely if his body had remained so well preserved for six days before finally being cut into. Yet, some others have offered the idea that he could have been in a coma instead of dead. Keeps the mystery going, doesn't it?
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Not that there weren't any happy to be rid of his addiction to further conquest, if not the man himself, but I'd think his death was due more to natural causes - if aided.

The man had been wounded many times - near moratally in one famous episode - and his treatment of himself was not terribly good. Justin describes him "resigning himself wholly to mirth, and joining in his cups the night to the day" before relating the continuous binge drinking session that immediately preceeded his mortal illness. Arrian, too, describes (earlier in the campaign) his increasing tendency binge drink as apreface to the murder of Clietus "When the drinking-party on this occasion had already gone on too long (for Alexander had now made innovations even in regard to drinking, by imitating too much the custom of foreigners)..."

I suspect one might conclude that death was a result of alcohol abuse and bodily abuse by other means (wounds) thus rendering him susceptible to sickness - susceptible unto death.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: R'lyeh

Post by the_accursed »

The case for murder as the cause of Alexander’s death is far stronger than the case for him dying from a, very selective, disease.

It seems to be a popular belief that Alexander was involved in the death of Philip. The argument is that he had much to gain by Philip’s death. The question then must be: did anyone have anything to gain by the death of Alexander?

Well, yes. Alexander inherited a powerful army and a large (though only by Greek standards) and bankrupt empire.

The generals inherited the world. The moment Alexander died was the moment they became the most powerful and wealthy men in the world. All that remained was solving the problem of how to divide this enormous power and wealth – a problem that the diadoch wars would eventually solve. The diadochs who were “the strongest” gained empires.

As Paralus has pointed out, Alexander was universally hated. He was, most likely, the most hated king in recorded history: he was hated by the Macedonians, the Greeks (who seems to have hated him more than they ever hated Darius and Xerxes), the Persians and the Indians. He was as hated by his own army and generals as ever by his opponents.

So was there anyone who might have felt they had good reasons to kill him? Well, yes.

Furthermore: if the generals – all of them or some of them – conspired to murder Alexander, then they would also have had to get rid of Hephaestion. Otherwise, there’d been nothing to divide, as Hephaestion would then have taken Alexander’s place. So they would have had to get rid of him, too. But: it would have been impossible to murder Hephaestion after having murdered Alexander without raising suspicion. First the king dies…and then, shortly afterwards, the new king dies, too? And under very similar circumstances?

No, if they wanted to murder Alexander, they would have had to get rid of Hephaestion first. And then let some time pass. And then murder Alexander. And lo and behold: First the second in command died, and then, after a sufficiently long period of time had passed, the king died too. And in almost the very same way.

Yes, Alexander was a heavy drinker. But so was Philip. Yet he lived to be 46, and would have lived to be even older had he not been murdered. And yes, Alexander had experienced physical hardships. But so had Philip before him. And so had thousands of Macedonian soldiers. They, too, fought and were wounded in the countless battles and sieges. And they, too (many of them), crossed the Gedrosian desert. And most of them, on top of this, drank heavily – just as heavily as Philip and Alexander had. Yet, they did not succumb to this mysterious and very selective “disease”, a “disease” that seems to only have killed off the two most powerful people in the world.

There’s also the question of timing. Alexander was just days away from embarking on a new campaign when he died. The same would later be true for Julius Caesar – as it had been, before, for Philip. If the generals wanted to kill Alexander, it had to be done before leaving Babylon. Furthermore, Roxana was pregnant, but had not yet given birth. And so Alexander would die without an obvious successor. That, too, may have made a difference, timing-wise.

One must also mention that there had already been at least one (but perhaps also others that we don’t know about) previous attempt at murdering Alexander – and with poison! That attempt failed. I wonder, though, what would have been said, had they (the pages) succeeded. Most likely the very same things that are being said now: it was the alcohol and the hardships, and yes, sure, he was hated, but that doesn’t prove he was murdered, and yes, the symptoms before he died may indicate that he was poisoned, but we still can’t know for sure – et c.

It may be that we can never know for sure. But considering how much was to be gained by murdering the person who was 1. the most hated king that had ever existed and 2. the richest and most powerful person in the world who 3. did not have a successor and, and who’s empire – the world! - would thus be up for grabs, murder is by far the most reasonable theory to explain the sudden and unexpected death of this accursed king.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Oh dear! The tarnished memory.

It seems, the_accursed, we have little respect for the demigod. Is that the thesis?
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: R'lyeh

Post by the_accursed »

Was that supposed to be sarcasm, Paralus? And if so...what did I write that made me deserve such a reply? I honestly want to know.

I'd have thought, you see, that my point was obvious:

Alexander was, most likely, murdered. Everything points in that direction. That's the thesis.

I'm honestly bewildered by your post.

(Update)

Unless it's the fact that I disagree with you, and argue against your (and many others) opinion regarding the uniqueness of Alexander's alcohol habits and experienced hardships, that is. To which I say: come on. I'd not have thought you were that sensitive, Paralus.
aleksandros
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Boston

Post by aleksandros »

It's sad but i agree.

As Philotas confessed he and his father wanted to kill Alexander from the start but if they did while Darius was still alive it would benefit Darius more than them. So After the death of Darius they went for it. But failed. That stunned many enemies of Alexander who knew that from now on it would be so stupid to kill Alexander during a Bactrian uprising and so far from home. Then there was India and Alexander was more valuable alive to the army until he led everyone back to Babylon.
Just think about it. Babylon. All external enemies are wiped and Alexander has more internal enemies than ever for many reasons. This is the best time to take him down. We dont need him anymore!

When an attempt against the king is done the most powerful are no1 suspects. The ones who are going to gain the most.

Parmenio and Philotas were similar to Philip and Alexander with the exeption they werent kings. They proved their selves and went up. So its normal for Philotas to believe that the victories were his and his father's. They had to be notable commanders. They went for it but got killed.

Who's next ? Who else but Antipatros! Alexander should have been prepared..... it happened before....

Its so interesting to see how attitudes change. Philip always said he felt so blessed to have Parmenio as a general and Antipatros as a regent. They were his favourites.

Investigating those person's attempts on Alexander shows how things had changed. The glass was broken. Alexander was so different than Philip that noone could take it anymore.

I just cant understand how Alexander couldnt see that coming. I really cant. What a mistake. A deadly one....

You know its so typical already. When invincible, beware of the ones closest to you....
ΤΩ ΚΡΑΤΕΡΩ
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: The coma

Post by marcus »

jan wrote:[The coma] that Alexander appears to be in before finally being embalmed makes it appear that it was arsenic, and I believe that maybe Paul Doherty did write something to that effect also in his book on the death of Alexander. Correct me if I am mistaken about that.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the coma that Alexander appears to be in before finally being embalmed", Jan. I'm not aware that there's any suggestion that he didn't die when he died (if you see what I mean). I should point out that any reference to anything Paul Doherty says should be made with a decidedly liberal handful of salt - one should certainly not take anything he says as relating to the facts. This is the man, after all, who used, as quotes at the beginning of the chapters in one of his abysmal 'historical mysteries'* involving Alexander, quotations from the first two books of Curtius, which don't exist.

* The only mystery involved in these is how such pieces of arrant nonsense were ever published.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Not convinced that Hephaistion had to die first

Post by marcus »

the_accursed wrote:Furthermore: if the generals – all of them or some of them – conspired to murder Alexander, then they would also have had to get rid of Hephaestion. Otherwise, there’d been nothing to divide, as Hephaestion would then have taken Alexander’s place. So they would have had to get rid of him, too. But: it would have been impossible to murder Hephaestion after having murdered Alexander without raising suspicion. First the king dies…and then, shortly afterwards, the new king dies, too? And under very similar circumstances?
Hmm, although I remain firmly on the fence as far as murder/disease is concerned; and, I have to say, I lean towards the disease side of said fence, I can sympathise with almost all your argument.

Almost? Yes, almost, because I'm not convinced that it was any form of foregone conclusion that Hephaistion would have succeeded Alexander if Alexander were to have died first. It is true that Heph. was, to all intents and purposes, the second man in the empire at the time of his death; but I'm not convinced that Heph. had such security in his position that he would have automatically been able to take control. Even if Heph. had survived Alexander, I can well imagine that not a few of the generals would have very soon bumped him off anyway, and the Diodochoi struggles would still have happened.

"Without raising suspicion"? If one considers that Perdiccas didn't appear to give a damn about whether his complicity in murdering Stateira was overt or merely "suspected", and considering that at least some of the generals were hardly best mates with Hephaistion, I doubt that many people would have given two hoots if Hephaistion had been quietly, or even noisily, removed from the scene following Alexander's death.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
the_accursed
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 am
Location: R'lyeh

Re: Not convinced that Hephaistion had to die first

Post by the_accursed »

Hmm, although I remain firmly on the fence as far as murder/disease is concerned; and, I have to say, I lean towards the disease side of said fence, I can sympathise with almost all your argument.

Almost? Yes, almost, because I'm not convinced that it was any form of foregone conclusion that Hephaistion would have succeeded Alexander if Alexander were to have died first. It is true that Heph. was, to all intents and purposes, the second man in the empire at the time of his death; but I'm not convinced that Heph. had such security in his position that he would have automatically been able to take control. Even if Heph. had survived Alexander, I can well imagine that not a few of the generals would have very soon bumped him off anyway, and the Diodochoi struggles would still have happened.


I agree that it's entirely possible that the successor wars would still have happened. I do think, though, that if the generals wanted to murder Alexander, then murdering Hephaestion too would have made sense. For one thing, he was not someone who could have been included in any conspiracy against Alexander. And who knows how Hephaestion would have reacted, had Alexander died while he himself was still alive? What if he had suspected that Alexander had been murdered? Hephaestion replacing Alexander would, in my opinion, probably have been quite different from Perdiccas replacing him - and especially, of course, if Perdiccas himself was a conspirator. But as I said, I agree that the successor wars could have have happened anyway. And yes - it's all very speculative. But then, so is the case for Alexander dying from a disease that seems to have killed only him and Hephaestion, and/or from hardships - et c - that he was far from alone from having endured.
"Without raising suspicion"? If one considers that Perdiccas didn't appear to give a damn about whether his complicity in murdering Stateira was overt or merely "suspected", and considering that at least some of the generals were hardly best mates with Hephaistion, I doubt that many people would have given two hoots if Hephaistion had been quietly, or even noisily, removed from the scene following Alexander's death.
It's not that I think people would have cared about Hephaestion himself. But I think some still might have cared - who, though, I don't know - about what the murder of Hephaestion might have said about the death of Alexander. There might still have been soldiers who would have been unwilling to be under the command, afterwards, of someone they knew, or believed, was responsible for Alexander's death. Or worse, as some might even have considered it a crime that ought to be punished.

In other words: if Alexander was indeed murdered by the generals, then limiting speculations that they had anything to do with it would probably have seemed like a good idea. Not crucial, perhaps, but the cautious thing to do. And had Hephaestion died after Alexander, limiting such speculations would, in my opinion, have been a far more difficult thing to do.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Not convinced that Hephaistion had to die first

Post by marcus »

the_accursed wrote:
"Without raising suspicion"? If one considers that Perdiccas didn't appear to give a damn about whether his complicity in murdering Stateira was overt or merely "suspected", and considering that at least some of the generals were hardly best mates with Hephaistion, I doubt that many people would have given two hoots if Hephaistion had been quietly, or even noisily, removed from the scene following Alexander's death.
It's not that I think people would have cared about Hephaestion himself. But I think some still might have cared - who, though, I don't know - about what the murder of Hephaestion might have said about the death of Alexander. There might still have been soldiers who would have been unwilling to be under the command, afterwards, of someone they knew, or believed, was responsible for Alexander's death. Or worse, as some might even have considered it a crime that ought to be punished.

In other words: if Alexander was indeed murdered by the generals, then limiting speculations that they had anything to do with it would probably have seemed like a good idea. Not crucial, perhaps, but the cautious thing to do. And had Hephaestion died after Alexander, limiting such speculations would, in my opinion, have been a far more difficult thing to do.
I see what you're saying. I don't agree, of course! :D To be more specific - my own feeling is that, given the obvious partisanship that clearly existed (e.g. the way the infantry and the cavalry squared up to each other within 24 hours of Alexander's death), had Hephaistion still lived at that point, then someone sticking a knife between his ribs would have excited no more comment than was aroused anyway by the king's own death. As the men were prepared to fight each other over Alexander's deathbed, then the quiet (or noisy) elimination of his favourite would have seemed almost inevitible at some point, rather than an indication that there had been foul play against Alexander.

Anyway, my point was that I don't agree that Hephaistion's predeceasing Alexander is pointed enough to argue for murder; or to put it another way: had he lived, that wouldn't be any greater or lesser argument against Alexander having been murdered.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Post Reply