James Romm on Alexander's Death

[marcus]

I don't know if the magazine is available outside the UK, but April's issue of History Today has an article by James Romm on Alexander's Death.

I haven't picked up a copy, yet, so this is all I have, information wise, at the moment.

ATB

[agesilaos]

Who is James Romm, should I have heard of him?

[marcus]

Who is James Romm, should I have heard of him?

Editor of the Landmark Arrian, and also author of Ghost on the Throne and Herodotus. He appears to be the new 'ubiquitous expert' on Alexander. Seems like a good chap, so I'm expecting the article to be a decent one (and it is in a 'proper' History magazine, as well).

ATB

[agesilaos]

Doh! guess I should have

[Alexias]

This is a well-written essay, but not really worth spending £5.20 on the magazine for it. Romm really just summarises the various conspiracy theories surrounding Alexander’s death and basically determines that they are a waste of time:

Conspiracy theories have to assume that Alexander’s generals hated their commander enough to risk everything. It is easier to see them in the way the sources portray them: as a dedicated cadre of elite officers reliant for their fortunes on the survival and success of their king. Thus it is easier, in the end, to believe that Alexander died of disease, despite ingenious and determined efforts to prove otherwise.

He sets out the two accounts of Alexander’s final days: the official version followed by Arrian and Plutarch from the Royal Journals – fever after Medius’ drinking party leading to a gradual deterioration; and the Vulgate version – Alexander crying out in pain after drinking a large cup of wine at Medius’ drinking party, followed by pain and convulsions etc. but no mention of fever. One main argument against Alexander having been poisoned of course is that poison doesn’t produce fever.

Romm states that the illness proposed for Alexander’s death are: malaria (Borza), typhoid fever, smallpox and leukaemia.

Here, for reference, are the poison conspiracy theories he lists:

a) Oliver Stone: all the generals colluded, with no one being particularly the ring leader (although possibly Ptolemy or Cassander)

b) Vulgate sources: Antipater aided by Cassander and Iollas to administer the waters of the Styx

c) Bosworth: the Royal Journals were doctored by Eumenes or Antipater to make Alexander’s death look natural

d) Mayer and Hayes (2010): the waters of the Styx were bacterially contaminated and could have been used as poison

e) Shrep and Grieve (2009): the physicians accidentally overdosed Alexander on white hellebore (a violent purgative)

f) Phillips (2004): strychnine administered by Rhoxanne, having acquired it in Pakistan. This was the only new one on me, though why she would have acquired it shortly after marrying, and then not used it for about 3 years, nor waited to find out the sex of her unborn baby, I find difficult to understand.

g) Doherty (2004): Ptolemy using arsenic, because it has mummification properties and Alexander’s body didn’t appear to decay (though medical theorists say this was because he was in a coma, not actually dead).

h) Atkinson (2009): a combination of malaria and mind games – the generals and perhaps Alexander, convincing him that it would be better if he died as he could never surpass himself.

[marcus]

f) Phillips (2004): strychnine administered by Rhoxanne, having acquired it in Pakistan. This was the only new one on me, though why she would have acquired it shortly after marrying, and then not used it for about 3 years, nor waited to find out the sex of her unborn baby, I find difficult to understand.

g) Doherty (2004): Ptolemy using arsenic, because it has mummification properties and Alexander’s body didn’t appear to decay (though medical theorists say this was because he was in a coma, not actually dead).

These two you can discount, anyway, because they're sensationalist nonsense, without an iota of evidence to back them up. The Phillips book is a travesty and has no place on a "history" shelf in any bookshop. Unfortunately, that's how it's categorised, which makes a mockery of the very essence of historical research.

ATB

[chris_taylor]

a) Oliver Stone
b) Vulgate sources: Antipater aided by Cassander and Iollas to administer the waters of the Styx
c) Bosworth: the Royal Journals were doctored by Eumenes or Antipater to make Alexander’s death look natural
d) Mayer and Hayes (2010): the waters of the Styx were bacterially contaminated and could have been used as poison
e) Shrep and Grieve (2009): the physicians accidentally overdosed Alexander on white hellebore (a violent purgative)
f) Phillips (2004):
g) Doherty (2004):
h) Atkinson (2009):

LOL! I hadn't heard some of these. Died of a violent purgative - priceless. I'd like to add Green, with his "chronic strychnine poisoning".

A historian's opinion on toxicology, malaria in Ancient Babylon and cause of death are no more useful than a chimpanzee's musings on nuclear fusion. If you want to know why somebody died, ask a doctor.

That none of them did, says a lot about their methodology.

Chris.

[agesilaos]

To be fair Shrep is a doctor and the effects of hellebore were tested on an artificial human (no ,not Paris Hilton) and the symptoms did seem similar. And Mayers and Hayes are micro-biologists and purely interested in the reputation that Styx water had in antiquity they leave the history to historians. He seems to have missed another Doctor based theory too, the Nile Virus theory.

Both Doherty and Philips were symptoms of the surge in Alexander industry co-inciding with the release of Stone's film and neither would get a pass if submitted as essays for 'O' level only to be picked up in charity shops and read to remind you how NOT to present/form an historical argument. We have discussed this topic to death here and will continue so to do since there is insufficient evidence for a final answer just like the Ripper.

The only theory I have not heard voiced is that in his weakened state he was bored to death by Niarchos reading his Indike! But wait for Doherty's second edition

[chris_taylor]

To be fair Shrep is a doctor and the effects of hellebore were tested on an artificial human (no ,not Paris Hilton) and the symptoms did seem similar.

His article isn't on PubMed. If he tried to publish it, no medical journal thought it was worth the paper it's written on.

since there is insufficient evidence for a final answer just like the Ripper.

Thanks for stating this so clearly.

I should have said "clinician" instead of "doctor" and the clinicians - toxicologists, infectious diseases experts, physicians - aren't discussing it: out of 2,000,000 articles on PubMed, exactly 17 deal with the subject and all are a lot more humble about their conclusions than those self-styled Alexander experts.

And they're not discussing it, because there's nothing to discuss. There's no way of knowing.

Chris.

[marcus]

The only theory I have not heard voiced is that in his weakened state he was bored to death by Niarchos reading his Indike! But wait for Doherty's second edition

Brilliant! It makes more sense than Doherty's other theory.

What people rarely add into the mix is the fact that Alexander suffered a great number of wounds during the campaign, including a punctured lung. He must have had the constitution of an ox; but even that would be eroded by the rigours he endured. It wouldn't have taken much for him to succumb to a mosquito bite ... and that's the main reason why I tend to ascribe to the malaria theory.

ATB

[Alexias]

Found a recent interview with James Romm here:

http://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/cm ... great.html

[athenas owl]

f) Phillips (2004): strychnine administered by Rhoxanne, having acquired it in Pakistan. This was the only new one on me, though why she would have acquired it shortly after marrying, and then not used it for about 3 years, nor waited to find out the sex of her unborn baby, I find difficult to understand.

g) Doherty (2004): Ptolemy using arsenic, because it has mummification properties and Alexander’s body didn’t appear to decay (though medical theorists say this was because he was in a coma, not actually dead).

These two you can discount, anyway, because they're sensationalist nonsense, without an iota of evidence to back them up. The Phillips book is a travesty and has no place on a "history" shelf in any bookshop. Unfortunately, that's how it's categorised, which makes a mockery of the very essence of historical research.

ATB

I had missed the Phillips book before this (lucky me, I think!). SO I went looking for information about it. Remind me to never get on your bad side Marcus. Anyway, who did Phillips think done it? I'm not going to waste money on the book and everyone who reviews the book good or bad is not saying so as to not ruin my surprise.

I have no real opinion on whether ATG died or was murdered. Of course the murder theories are much juicier and fun and the timing was certainly interesting. Living in the US we still are arguing over who really killed JFK. The "Magic Bullet" and all that. Conspiracy theories abound here, like our current POTUS having planned his future at birth by sneaking his birth announcement into an Hawaiian newspaper to "hide" his "real" birth in Kenya because nearly 50 years later he would want to run for President. Cunning lad.

In some way this kind of hoohaw reminds me of what may have happened after ATG's death. Just as the Obama CTs are political, so, sadly, may be all the information we still have were different sides pointing fingers. But I'm sure everyone here knows that.

I'm sure this has been posted here before, but it a discussion between Romm and Paul Cartledge about this very subject.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/booked/2011 ... the-great/

Hope everyone is well.

[Paralus]

Conspiracy theories abound here, like our current POTUS having planned his future at birth by sneaking his birth announcement into an Hawaiian newspaper to "hide" his "real" birth in Kenya because nearly 50 years later he would want to run for President. Cunning lad.

The creativity of the US (or Australian) lunar right never ceases to amaze. These are the same people who, after both Obama victories, began the now regular secession proceedings that seem to attach to Democrat victories. The same intelligensia that think the US president is responsible for petrol prices. Some of these Tea party members ought to live in Australia where we are currently paying the equivalent of $5.64 per US gallon for petrol (something similar in England I'd suggest). Of course, our Prime minister sets petrol prices as well...

[hiphys]

Cartledge statement "poison has to me more of a Roman than a Greek ring to it" is plainly refuted by Plutarch's quote (Alex.life,77,2-3):
"And as for suspicions of poisoning, NO ONE HAD ANY IMMEDIATELY, but five years afterwards, as we are told, upon information given, Olympias put many men to death, and scattered abroad the ashes of Iolas, ALLEGING that he had administered the poison. But those who affirm that Aristotle counselled Antipater to do the deed, and that it was entirely through his agency that the poison was provided, mention one Hagnothemis as their authority, who professed to have heard the story from Antigonus the king."
Of course Plutarch belongs to Roman period, but his sources seems to be quite earlier. Most impressing is the violation of Iolas' tomb by Olympias (herself a reputed poisoner, cfr. infra, 77,7-8), five years after Alexander's death,'alleging that he had administered the poison'. Therefore the problem isn't IF Iolas had or hadn't poisoned Alexander, but that the poison was only the pretext for Olympias to act against the Antipatridae, her old enemies.
The charge of poisoning someone was even among Greeks a powerful way of doing someone in (cfr. the well known episode of Alexander's illness before Issus in Plutarch,Alex.life,19, 3:"Be that as it may, none of the other physicians had the courage to administer remedies, but thinking that the danger was too great to be overcome by any remedy whatever, they WERE AFRAID OF THE CHARGES WHICH WOULD BE MADE AGAINST THEM BY THE MACEDONIANS IN CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR FAILURE.").
That said, I don't think Alexander was poisoned, but that this charge was used by Olympias and perhaps others as well (e.g. Antigonus, himself an enemy of the Antipatridae) as an excuse to kill someone or violate someone's tomb. There is nothing that may prevent myself from believing to these sources, even if we know them from a relatively late one.