Is history REALLY sure Alexander was buried in Egypt ?

[speople]

Just how correct is history when it says that Alexander was buried in Egypt ?

Firstly, it supposedly took 2 years to begin moving his (supposedly embalmed) remains.

Secondly, it supposedly took 2 years for Ptolemy to make his move to steal them.

Thirdly, supposedly, nothing was ever done about that.

I have MANY issues with these "facts".

First of all, given his status, are we really expected to believe that it took 2 years to get his remains on the move ? He was legendary/revered to the Greeks, particularly in Macedon, and the place was extremely wealthy, Olympias was also supposedly a very ambitious woman who believed Alexander to be the son of Zeus. So I find it hard to comprehend that they would all quietly sit by and wait 2 years for Alexander to begin coming home. Furthermore, strangely, Olympias never made an attempt to go abroad to pay last respects to her godly son.

The funerary cart was said to be gold, are we really expected to believe that a large, gold cart would be safely moved hundreds of miles ? It would stick out like a sore thumb and be a magnet for any would be band of thieves.

If Ptolemy wanted Alexander's remains in order to further legitimise his rule of Egypt, why wait 2 years to try and steal them. Ideally you'd want them as soon as possible because you'd consider your position less tenable without them. I therefore find it hard to comprehend that such an ambitious man would wait such a long time.

After Ptolemy supposedly stole them, it seems no one ever made an attempt to steal (buy/barter) them back, even after Ptolemy eventually died. Again, major issues here, Greece was fabulously wealthy, Alexander was revered, but yet they apparently just let the remains stay with Ptolemy in Egypt.

History says that a number of prominent Romans saw Alexander's remains. However, if as reported, he was mummified, he'd have surely been in wrappings. And to be honest, anyone can be under some wrappings and be called somone else.
As far as Ptolemy was concerned, the MOST important thing was that people merely BELIEVED he had the remains, whether he had them or not. (As far as I can tell, history has also never recorded a description of his remains by anyone who reportedly saw them.)

Given the "inconsistencies" I'm not so sure at all that Alexander was ever buried in Egypt.

[Paralus]

Welcome speople. Many things in that first post that need addressing but far too much going hereabouts to attempt the lot just now. The problem is you proceed from several incorrect assumptions. One of the most important is below:

If Ptolemy wanted Alexander's remains in order to further legitimise his rule of Egypt, why wait 2 years to try and steal them. Ideally you'd want them as soon as possible because you'd consider your position less tenable without them. I therefore find it hard to comprehend that such an ambitious man would wait such a long time.

There is no doubting Ptolemy's ambition and notions of that being limited to Egypt are incorrect: Ptolemy, like the rest, played the game to be Alexander's true successor. He had no need whatsoever to "steal" the corpse to "further legitimise" his "rule" of Egypt. Ptolemy was the duly appointed satrap of Egypt - an appointment franked in Babylon - and ruled no kingdom at this stage. In the shadows of Babylon there is no thought of dismembering Alexander's empire; quite the opposite in fact and views proposing "separatists" are based on hindsight. The immediate plays for the entire empire: Leonnatus and then Perdiccas. Ptolemy's actions are another part of this.

[speople]

Welcome speople. Many things in that first post that need addressing but far too much going hereabouts to attempt the lot just now. The problem is you proceed from several incorrect assumptions. One of the most important is below:

If Ptolemy wanted Alexander's remains in order to further legitimise his rule of Egypt, why wait 2 years to try and steal them. Ideally you'd want them as soon as possible because you'd consider your position less tenable without them. I therefore find it hard to comprehend that such an ambitious man would wait such a long time.

There is no doubting Ptolemy's ambition and notions of that being limited to Egypt are incorrect: Ptolemy, like the rest, played the game to be Alexander's true successor. He had no need whatsoever to "steal" the corpse to "further legitimise" his "rule" of Egypt. Ptolemy was the duly appointed satrap of Egypt - an appointment franked in Babylon - and ruled no kingdom at this stage. In the shadows of Babylon there is no thought of dismembering Alexander's empire; quite the opposite in fact and views proposing "separatists" are based on hindsight. The immediate plays for the entire empire: Leonnatus and then Perdiccas. Ptolemy's actions are another part of this.

Surely however, the generals all knew that none of them were capable of "complete control" of the empire, as Alexander was the glue that kept the different parts of the army together. They (the army) were loyal to him, with him gone, their loyalty would surely have been quite divided (as to which general they would follow). That you say there were no immediate thoughts of dismembering the empire, makes it seem even more suspicious that there was (supposedly) such a long delay (for "Greece/Macedon, and his generals) to try and get his body back home.

[Alexias]

First of all, given his status, are we really expected to believe that it took 2 years to get his remains on the move ? He was legendary/revered to the Greeks, particularly in Macedon, and the place was extremely wealthy, Olympias was also supposedly a very ambitious woman who believed Alexander to be the son of Zeus. So I find it hard to comprehend that they would all quietly sit by and wait 2 years for Alexander to begin coming home. Furthermore, strangely, Olympias never made an attempt to go abroad to pay last respects to her godly son.

The generals had a lot more pressing concerns than worrying about where or how Alexander was going to be buried - like who was in charge? would the Persians and other Asian nations rise in revolt with Alexander dead?

Travel was difficult and slow in those days, especially for a middle-aged, high status lady. It would have taken months for Olympias to get to Babylon and she wouldn't have left Macedonia, her power base, to wander about Asia, where she could easily be attacked or kidnapped, if she wanted to be involved in the political and military struggles for control. Macedonia, as the home base, was key and she would not have left it.

The funerary cart was said to be gold, are we really expected to believe that a large, gold cart would be safely moved hundreds of miles ? It would stick out like a sore thumb and be a magnet for any would be band of thieves.

It would have been heavily guarded.

History says that a number of prominent Romans saw Alexander's remains. However, if as reported, he was mummified, he'd have surely been in wrappings. And to be honest, anyone can be under some wrappings and be called somone else.
As far as Ptolemy was concerned, the MOST important thing was that people merely BELIEVED he had the remains, whether he had them or not. (As far as I can tell, history has also never recorded a description of his remains by anyone who reportedly saw them.)

It wasn't wrapped. Augustus broke off the nose.

[speople]

@ Alexias: Apparently, the cart wasn't well guarded enough. Plus there may not have been much of a journey needed to be made, as he'd have made the journey by sea. 2 years is still a long time to ponder what to do with a body, way too long given the "military" and "political" decisions that they (the generals/advisers) would have had to make. They'd have had to make those decisions quite quickly to shore up support etc.
Augustus supposedly broke the nose, however no actual proof that he did, without protective wrappings surely even a mummified body would be subject to the ravages of time. When attendants reportedly "brought" Alexander to the Emperors from the tomb, I'm not so sure they'd have been carrying a without wrappings petrified human in their arms.
On public display for a number of centuries, surely someone somewhere would have described what he looked like.

[Paralus]

Surely however, the generals all knew that none of them were capable of "complete control" of the empire, as Alexander was the glue that kept the different parts of the army together.

That is thinking informed, again, by hindsight. One has to try to see this as it would have been at the time, not with subsequent history in mind (difficult as that can be for all of us at times). Leonnatus went to Antipater's aid with the view of marrying Cleopatra and thus making himself Alexander's successor. Perdiccas changed the destination of Alexander's corpse with a view to taking it to Macedona himself with exactly the same intention. Neither was dismembering the empire and nor was Ptolemy.

They (the army) were loyal to him, with him gone, their loyalty would surely have been quite divided (as to which general they would follow).

The army's loyalty was to the royal house and its current incumbent(s): Philip III and Alexander IV. The regent who 'controlled' these 'puppets' controlled the empire. See Perdiccas.

That you say there were no immediate thoughts of dismembering the empire, makes it seem even more suspicious that there was (supposedly) such a long delay (for "Greece/Macedon, and his generals) to try and get his body back home.

You do not understand or have not read about the Babylonian Settlement. The marshals and army (eventually) settled the succession crisis and provided for the disposal of Alexander's body. The hearse was ordered and building of same commenced. It had absolutely nothing to do with "Greece" and the Macedonian decision was that taken at Babylon. I doubt Athens, Achaea, Thessaly, Boeotia and other polities in Greece gave any thought to the reclamation of Alexander's remains.

[Paralus]

Apparently, the cart wasn't well guarded enough. Plus there may not have been much of a journey needed to be made, as he'd have made the journey by sea. 2 years is still a long time to ponder what to do with a body, way too long given the "military" and "political" decisions that they (the generals/advisers) would have had to make.

Alexias will likely make her own answer but, again, you seem not to understand the process and the history. No one pondered for two years about what to do with the body. That decision was taken in the week(s) following Alexander's death along with the rest of the Babylonian Settlement. The journey was indeed long: the cart (drawn by sixty mules) traveled from Babylon to the Levant. Accompanied by mechanics and road menders, it was hardly traveling at more than a slow walk and did not leave until end of summer 321. Perdiccas sent a 'flying column' to secure it but Ptolemy met it "with an army" near to Damascus.

[Efstathios]

To rephrase speople's question, is history really sure that it was Alexander that was buried in Egypt? Sure, the Roman emperors saw a body that was supposed to be Alexander, but was it him? Even before the Amphipolis' tomb was found some archaeologists and historians pointed out that the body that was at Alexandria may have been a fake, or of someone else that was made to look like Alexander. There are several reasons for that.

The history of the wagon that took 2 years to built and was luxurious and it was carried by many horses, is not very convincing, as it would also probably have needed a well paved road to travel, so more expenses and no such road is mentioned in the sources. There is also no mention about what happened to it after it was intercepted by Ptolemy. Speaking of Ptolemy, one account says that when he took Alexander's body he left behind a bogus one to trick Perdiccas. So it is evident, and if the source is correct on that, that Ptolemy had the Egyptians make for him a fake body of Alexander. And then Perdiccas found out and went to Egypt to take back Alexander's body and was killed there. And in the light of these events the meeting at Triparadeisos took place, and this is the point where Alexander's body could have returned to Macedonia or stayed in Egypt. The sources make no mention of what was agreed there. It is possible that Ptolemy was convinced to allow Alexander's body to be buried in Macedonia in secrecy (thus the sources make no mention of it). Ptolemy buried Alexander in Memphis and not in public display. 40 years later though his successor moved the body to Alexandria, the new capital. That was done for prestige reasons most likely, and in that light and with Ptolemy's history with faking Alexander's body, he could have done the same as well.

All these are speculations since the sources are not clear on the matter. The tomb in Amphipolis brings these scenarios back to light as if a deal was made in Triparadeisos with Alexander's body being moved to Macedonia maybe part of the deal was not to be in Aigai but somewhere else, so maybe in a tomb made in Amphipolis for Hephaestion or whoever it was made for.

[gepd]

Even if it is theoretically possible that what the Roman emperors saw was not Alexander, I think that is an extremely unlikely scenario. Secret-keeping is not that straightforward: recall that the meeting at Triparadisus was attended by numerous of Alexander's generals who engaged in various conflicts afterwards. It would have been rather simple for any of Ptolemy's opponents to just reveal the potential "Triparadisus secret" and cause trouble in his kingdom. None of the diadochoi appeared trustworthy to keep such a secret, alliances were rather unstable, so effectively it would have been a stupid and unnecessarily risky move from Ptolemy to smuggle the body out of Egypt. Only others could benefit from such a move, not Ptolemy.

Also recall that the meeting at Triparadisus took place effectively after Ptolemy refused becoming a regent and involved all the diadochoi. Had Ptolemy accepted, the meeting would never have happened, so no chance to discuss about Alexander's corpse.

Even if the motivation was Alexander's body final resting place, a meeting would have involved possibly only Antipater and Ptolemy - who cares about Porus's opinion on that matter?

If Alexander was moved in secret, it would have been one that involved only Antipater and Ptolemy - maybe Ptolemy got Antipater's daughter Euridece for his wife, as an exchange? Even that sounds unlikely, given how the relation of Euridece with Ptolemy evolved.

Diodorus description of the funerary wagon could be a bit exaggerated, but the question of what happened to it is also an interesting one. Regarding the faking of Alexander's body in order to confuse Perdiccas (as described by Aelian), A. Erskine writes (http://www.jstor.org/stable/826904):

We should not believe this story; it is typical of the kind of story told of a loser. It is no surprise that shortly afterwards Perdiccas was assassinated
by his own soldiers.

The description is:

For he made a dummy of Alexander and fitted it out with royal clothes and an especially fine shroud. Then he laid it on one of the Persian
carriages and constructed a magnificent bier on it with silver, gold, and ivory. Alexander's real body was sent ahead in a simple and ordinary manner, following secret and rarely used tracks. Perdiccas, after he had seized the replica of the corpse with its specially prepared carriage, came to a halt, thinking that he had gained possession of the prize. When he realized that he had been deceived, it was too late to resume the chase.

Even if Erskine is wrong and Aelian is accurate, we can get from Aelian's description that either Perdiccas had no idea how the funerary wagon looked like (he never saw it, so he was not even suspicious by its absence), or that the wagon, as described by Diodorus, never really existed. If Perdiccas knew about the wagon, he would not have been deceived by some "secondary" Persian carriages used for replacing it.

[Taphoi]

Just how correct is history when it says that Alexander was buried in Egypt?

It is one of the most certain pieces of information that we have about the ancient world: slightly more certain and more reliably attested than the assassination of Julius Caesar, I would judge. Apart from a dozen or so ancient accounts (mostly independent of one another) that survive in hundreds of manuscripts, there is direct inscription evidence from the Parian Marble (shown below with the relevant passage ringed in red). It is a chronology of the ancient world inscribed in 262-263BC and publicly displayed on the Greek island of Paros for a long time thereafter. As you can see, it states in a passage securely datable to 321-320BC that Alexander was entombed at Memphis in Egypt in that year. So it is certain that Greeks alive within living memory of Alexander's reign believed him to have been entombed in Egypt.
Best wishes,
Andrew

ParianMarble.jpg (194.8 KiB) Viewed 5973 times

[speople]

Here I'm going off writings by Plutarch and Curtius.

"During the dissensions among the commanders, which lasted several days, the body continued clear and fresh, without any sign of such taint or corruption, though it lay neglected in a close, sultry place." (Plutarch, The Life of Alexander, vs. 77)

"Although the king’s body had lain in the coffin for six days in scorching heat, there was no sign of decay when the Egyptians and Chaldeans came to embalm it." (Curtius, The History of Alexander, 9: 19)

Scientifically, both accounts are COMPLETE RUBBISH.

When Flight MH17 came down in Ukraine's summer, the bodies were smelling to high heaven and in an advanced state of decay after just 3 days. Contrary to what he, his mother, or anyone else might have wanted to believe, Alexander WAS human. There is no way on this earth that in the heat of a Babylonian summer that Alexander's body would not have been in a ridiculously bad way after 6 days. (And those 6 days are a minimum, as he might not have been placed in a coffin straight away)
Furthermore, scientific tests have shown that preservation in honey, does NOT prevent organic decay in human sized subjects as it doesn't go where it needs to go fast enough, and doesn't do all that good of a job regardless.

Therefore, scientifically, after such a purported time with mediocre or no preservation after death whatsoever, there is NO WAY that Ptolemy, or anyone else, could have been showing by all accounts, an almost alive looking Alexander the Great, in Alexandria (or anywhere else).
After (at least) 6 days, he would have been a shocking sight to see, and smell. Certainly, a body in that condition wouldn't ever have been fit for display as is either no matter how the Chaldeans/Egyptians tarted it up, without it being wrapped for display. And being wrapped, it could have been anyone under the wrappings).
The ONLY important thing for Ptolemy (and his successors) was that people merely "believed" he had the remains, whether he had them or not.

Regardless, quite clearly, if after 6 days Egyptians and Chaldeans came to embalm it, and it still looked a fresh corpse, then it CAN'T have been the corpse of ATG.

Furthermore, Greeks never had a history of embalming people and never did so, so why the sudden need to embalm Alexander ? On the contrary rather than preserve, it was the custom to "destroy" (cremate, the remains).
If it was done to "take him back home" then logically speaking, after making such a decision, they wouldn't have waited almost 2 years to start tansporting the body, they'd have embalmed it and shipped it asap. It just doesn't make sense to spend all that time afterwards building a cart, you could build a city in that time, never mind 1 cart. And where was the body for those 2 years in the meantime ?

Re the supposed swap of the real corpse with a dummy, how was this achieved with no one seeing a single thing ?
Re the hijacking, why is there not a single recorded account of the hijacking, saying what happened ?

From a Greek cultural, scientific, and logical point of view, what "supposedly" happened to Alexander after death, simly doesn't "add up".

Alexander's journey of conquest started out from Amphipolis. If shipped back home, that's almost undoubtedly where'd he'd have arrived back as well. I'm not stating that he made it back there, but certainly, there are MAJOR flaws with the historical accounts that say he was embalmed, hijacked, buried in Memphis, dug up after 40-50 years, taken to Alexandria and then PUBLICLY displayed for centuries before going "missing".

[Paralus]

Furthermore, Greeks never had a history of embalming people and never did so, so why the sudden need to embalm Alexander ? On the contrary rather than preserve, it was the custom to "destroy" (cremate, the remains).

Other than the fact it was to go to Egypt (or 'Ammon')...

Plutarch, Agesilaos, 40.3:

It was Spartan custom, when men of ordinary rank died in a foreign country, to give their bodies funeral rites and burial there, but to carry the bodies of their kings home. So the Spartans who were with Agesilaüs enclosed his dead body in melted wax, since they had no honey, and carried it back to Lacedaemon.

If it was done to "take him back home" then logically speaking, after making such a decision, they wouldn't have waited almost 2 years to start tansporting the body, they'd have embalmed it and shipped it asap.

The corpse was to go to Egypt (or 'Ammon') rather than home or Macedonia. That was decided at Babylon. The change in its destination was made much later by Perdikkas.

Re the hijacking, why is there not a single recorded account of the hijacking, saying what happened ?

Diod. 18.28.2-3:
When Arrhidaeus had spent nearly two years in making ready this work, he brought the body of the king from Babylon to Egypt. Ptolemy, moreover, doing honour to Alexander, went to meet it with an army as far as Syria, and, receiving the body, deemed it worthy of the greatest consideration. He decided for the present not to send it to Ammon, but to entomb it in the city that had been founded by Alexander himself, which lacked little of being the most renowned of the cities of the inhabited earth.

Arrian, Succ. 1.25:
Arrhidaeus, who kept the body of Alexander with him, contrary to the wish of Perdiccas, took it from Babylon by way of Damascus to Ptolemaeus the son of Lagus in Egypt; and though often hindered on his journey by Polemon, a friend of Perdiccas, nevertheless succeeded in carrying out his intention.

Arrian, Succ.,Vatican Palimpsest, 1:
... the desertion of Arrhidaeus to Ptolemaeus, and the taking of the body of Alexander to Egypt ... the associates of Attalus and Polemon ... of the retreat ... returned to Perdiccas. He was even more determined to make an attack on Egypt, in order to remove Ptolemaeus from power, to set up one of his friends as governor of Egypt, and to recover the body of Alexander.