Ancients Behaving Badly

Post here about Alexander in film, TV, radio, other websites, YouTube etc.

Moderator: pothos moderators

jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by jan »

All these cruelties are very interesting when one considers that early in his career shortly after the death of Philip, when he had to assert his own authority and power, he confronted the getae and the Treballians. He was merciless in his decimation of tribes from the first, and when the Triballians finally came to him, he asked them what they feared most. Some authors seem to think that he wanted the Treballians to say," Why, sire, you, of course." But instead of satisfying his desire to be the most fearsome, the Treballian chieftain said, " We fear most that the sky might fall upon us", quoting an old and ancient belief.

I have read that same attitude that Alexander had wished for them to say that it was he they feared from several authors who obviously are quoting from the same source. The point is that if that is true, he made certain that he would be feared, thus respected, and made certain that the world would know of it. When one reads these posts, one almost gets the idea that either the sources are pouring it on, or that Alexander was pouring it on. Because of his need to conquer and control, I suspect that he poured it on.

He was establishing rule by example, power, and if need be, torture. It was rather common in that time frame to realize that torture was a weapon of war, and that often it would elicit information that bribery alone wouldn't. Mostly, it was an example to others not to let this happen to you too. So his adversaries had a choice of join him or die. This attitude has continued to the present day.

Because Alexander was so young he had no compunction about asserting his own power and rules over others. So if he had tied Batis's ankled with thongs to a chariot, he would have thought I will teach you a lesson, old man, for not submitting to me. He was ruthless and devoid of empathy for his adversary if his adversary defied him. However, if he truly did do this, I do believe that he was still under the influence of the Iliad and Achilles. Proving that he was still a bit wet behind the ears as we say in the states. A more mature Alexander would not have done that particular deed. I find it a bit hard to believe that he did drag Batis around, but I have learned that Alexander's temperament is such that he would have done it if he thought it worth doing. The timing of that event is such that he would have still been under the influence of his former teachers, and Homer and the Iliad.

Also, It is the kind of thing that soldiers would brag to one another about...and did you hear this story? and the more often told, the bigger it grows. I often wonder how many storylines about Alexander and his trophies are not just so many "fish" stories. Many authors seem to claim that he was a braggart, even as an adolescent, keeping his friends up all night long, arguing and bragging about activities..
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by marcus »

jan wrote:All these cruelties are very interesting when one considers that early in his career shortly after the death of Philip, when he had to assert his own authority and power, he confronted the getae and the Treballians. He was merciless in his decimation of tribes from the first, and when the Triballians finally came to him, he asked them what they feared most. Some authors seem to think that he wanted the Treballians to say," Why, sire, you, of course." But instead of satisfying his desire to be the most fearsome, the Treballian chieftain said, " We fear most that the sky might fall upon us", quoting an old and ancient belief.
Actually, Jan, it was the "Celts", whom Alexander had not fought, who sent an embassy to him and gave him the answer he wasn't expecting. They had come in friendship (although they undoubtedly wanted to get in their pledges of friendship before Alexander attacked them). Also, when you read what Arrian actually reports, the Celtic ambassadors feel able to give the answer they do because they know that Alexander isn't actually intending to attack them - Arrian I.4.8.

The "youthful" Alexander, whose treatment of Batis (if it did indeed occur as Curtius says) you seem rather close to excusing (!) would surely, according to your analysis, have attacked those Celts for so humiliatingly dismissing him? Instead, the Alexander who is at least three years younger than he was at Gaza, makes friends with the Celts and merely comments that they are braggarts.

Also, I think it is rather harsh to say that Alexander was "merciless in his decimation of the tribes from the first". He fought them, and he took prisoners to be sold as slaves; and he attacked them before they could attack Macedonia (which is exactly why he did attack them, to secure his border); but "merciless in his decimation" is a bit strong - it makes it sound as if he strode into undefended villages and massacred the inhabitants, which he didn't do. I think you've been reading Ian Worthington and picked up his mode of writing. :D

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by Paralus »

marcus wrote:Also, I think it is rather harsh to say that Alexander was "merciless in his decimation of the tribes from the first". He fought them, and he took prisoners to be sold as slaves; and he attacked them before they could attack Macedonia (which is exactly why he did attack them, to secure his border...
Nothing that couldn't be classed as the regular "border protection" work of Macedonian kings.
marcus wrote:... "merciless in his decimation" is a bit strong - it makes it sound as if he strode into undefended villages and massacred the inhabitants, which he didn't do.
That would come later. Though the villages, towns or "cities" were hardly undefended, the victims occasionally were. It would begin in Bactria/Soghdia and become planned slaughter in India as inhabitants were coralled by army groups deployed to prevent escape.
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
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by marcus »

Paralus wrote:
marcus wrote:... "merciless in his decimation" is a bit strong - it makes it sound as if he strode into undefended villages and massacred the inhabitants, which he didn't do.
That would come later. Though the villages, towns or "cities" were hardly undefended, the victims occasionally were. It would begin in Bactria/Soghdia and become planned slaughter in India as inhabitants were coralled by army groups deployed to prevent escape.
Oh, indeed. It definitely came later; but in Thrace and Illyria he was quite restrained. Of course, the fact that the Illyrians sacrificed some of their children most definitely gave the civilised Macedonian the moral high ground ... :roll:

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by jan »

Yes, Marcus, I was actually using Peter Green, and I did see that he had used both Celts and Treballians in his examination of this time period. I do not disagree with you about that, but I do about decimation and merciless. At the Battle of Charonea, he saw to it that all the Sacred Band were killed and was merciless about it, and that was even before Philip had been assassinated. He also quelled an uprising while he was serving as regent for his father when Philip was doing battle elsewhere. Alexander knew that his reputation depended upon his establishing his authority, and the tougher he appeared to be, the more credible he became as a leader. In that time, there was no such thing as "humane" considerations. The obvious goal was to achieve success as a military leader, and therefore, to annihilate the enemy for that meant survival. There should be no modern day judgement calls on this if one realizes that those times were truly the " survival of the fittest" and Alexander was bred and trained to be a military leader. The living were taken as slaves and that was mercilessly more cruel at times than was death. Death was a noble end for a warrior.

Historians always said that the entire sacred band was wiped out. It was only when the graves were opened, that they found evidence of fewer than 300 bodies buried. It does not mean that they survived or lived, jus t that they were not amongst the buried there.

I will parenthentically state that my unusal gift of honing in on Alexander of the past once upon a time gave me the opportunity to hear him speak at that event,Battle of Charonea, and his words were coldly," Kill them all." It seems that his men honored his words.

Alexander, imho, is a cold, merciless killer when it is job to assert his own rule. Those who submitted to him were treated fairly and well.

By the way, I did read one of Ian Worthington's books. I have not yet read his book about Philip.
I have a great respect for Alexander; whereas, I do not really believe that Ian has, but he has a vast amount of knowledge due to his years of study that I do not have. I am embarking upon writing my own novel of Alexander. I am following the historical accounts religiously. I am using many historians' books as reference, but the imagination and storyline is all my own..I just hope that I can get it done in a timely fashion.

Philotas and Alexander had been childhood friends, had gone to school together, had known each other from knees up...so it is not likely that Alexander actually enjoyed torturing or investigating Philotas. Philotas and Parmenio were close family friends to both Philip and Alexander. Philip thought that there was only one general, and it was Parmenio. Alexander had to have realized this all along, making it easy to understand why he often behaved as he did with Parmenio. Philotas and Alexander had attended school together, both studying under Aristotle, spent time together, knew each other so well that it would not have been an easy situation for Alexander to handle to learn that Philotas would not alert him to potential harm. I disagree with anyone who thinks that any of the friends likewise tortured Philotas simply for their own gain. They tortured him because he had been "one of them" and there is nothing worse than an internal "traitor".

So I really believe that the internal shock to him of betrayal from a long trusted friend would have dismayed him no end. It is a little too much like Caesar with Brutus, "Et tu, Brutus?" Nobody expects that a long, trusted friend could be your own worst enemy. So that would explain a lot of why the real friends did offer to help ATGs see through his own sentimental ties to this family. I believe that Parmenio was only executed due to the custom of having a member of the family suffer that fate if and when a family member was found guilty when accused of being a traitor.
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by Paralus »

jan wrote:I am embarking upon writing my own novel of Alexander. I am following the historical accounts religiously. I am using many historians' books as reference, but the imagination and storyline is all my own..I just hope that I can get it done in a timely fashion...
I believe you have.
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
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by marcus »

jan wrote:I do not disagree with you about that, but I do about decimation and merciless. At the Battle of Charonea, he saw to it that all the Sacred Band were killed and was merciless about it, and that was even before Philip had been assassinated.
That was a battle, in which the Sacred Band were fighting against an enemy. In battle, people die; and sometimes, in order to achieve victory, quite a few people have to die. There is no indication in what sources we have that the Sacred Band were (a) unarmed, or (b) trying to surrender; but the evidence suggests that they were fighting against the Macedonians. It would be unfair to call their destruction "merciless decimation".
jan wrote: He also quelled an uprising while he was serving as regent for his father when Philip was doing battle elsewhere. Alexander knew that his reputation depended upon his establishing his authority, and the tougher he appeared to be, the more credible he became as a leader.
He did indeed, according to Plutarch, but there is no description about the means by which he achieved the suppression of the uprising. Therefore, to say that this was "merciless decimation" is to make a judgement for which you have no facts.
jan wrote:In that time, there was no such thing as "humane" considerations. The obvious goal was to achieve success as a military leader, and therefore, to annihilate the enemy for that meant survival. There should be no modern day judgement calls on this if one realizes that those times were truly the " survival of the fittest" and Alexander was bred and trained to be a military leader. The living were taken as slaves and that was mercilessly more cruel at times than was death. Death was a noble end for a warrior.
Your point being ... ?
jan wrote:Historians always said that the entire sacred band was wiped out. It was only when the graves were opened, that they found evidence of fewer than 300 bodies buried. It does not mean that they survived or lived, jus t that they were not amongst the buried there.
Again, your point being ... ? Reference my response above. But it does appear that, with the absence of 300 bodies, perhaps the rest of them did survive; in which case, you cannot say that Alexander wiped them out.
jan wrote:I will parenthentically state that my unusal gift of honing in on Alexander of the past once upon a time gave me the opportunity to hear him speak at that event,Battle of Charonea, and his words were coldly," Kill them all." It seems that his men honored his words.
Oh dear. Jan, this is hardly the sort of evidence that is going to back up your statements. Funnily enough, my own atavistic gifts that allow me unexpurgated access to Alexander's mind sometimes shows me something completely different ... :shock:

More seriously, there was quite a lengthy discussion on this forum a while ago about whether Alexander did in fact "lead" the Macedonian left wing at Chaeronea, or whether he was just placed there under the command of a more experienced general. Unfortunately I can't find that discussion now, or I would give you the link. However, there is clearly some doubt about Alexander's actual role in the battle - but if he wasn't in charge of the left wing, then the destruction of the Sacred Band wasn't down to him, anyway!
jan wrote:Alexander, imho, is a cold, merciless killer when it is job to assert his own rule. Those who submitted to him were treated fairly and well.
That might be the case; but it doesn't warrant describing every defeat on an enemy as "merciless decimation" unless there is historical evidence to support it. Funnily enough, the one case of Alexander treating those who had submitted (well, sort of made a treaty rather than proper submission), the mercenaries in India, you have entirely omitted to mention. Now that was "merciless", but it wasn't decimation because he killed them all! :)
jan wrote: By the way, I did read one of Ian Worthington's books. I have not yet read his book about Philip.
His book on Philip is excellent.
jan wrote:Philotas and Alexander had been childhood friends, had gone to school together, had known each other from knees up...so it is not likely that Alexander actually enjoyed torturing or investigating Philotas. Philotas and Parmenio were close family friends to both Philip and Alexander. Philip thought that there was only one general, and it was Parmenio. Alexander had to have realized this all along, making it easy to understand why he often behaved as he did with Parmenio. Philotas and Alexander had attended school together, both studying under Aristotle, spent time together, knew each other so well that it would not have been an easy situation for Alexander to handle to learn that Philotas would not alert him to potential harm. I disagree with anyone who thinks that any of the friends likewise tortured Philotas simply for their own gain. They tortured him because he had been "one of them" and there is nothing worse than an internal "traitor".
In fact, we have no evidence whatsoever that Philotas studied with Alexander at Mieza. Philotas was possibly a few years older than Alexander, and we have no proof that they were "childhood friends" at all. Plutarch does mention their "friendship", but that doesn't mean that they were bosom-buddies or that they grew up together. In fact, Philotas was a friend of Amyntas, Alexander's cousin - one of the things that was used against Philotas in his trial, no less, as Amyntas was done away with after Philip's death as a possible (and indeed real) threat to Alexander's position.

As for "I disagree with anyone who thinks that any of the friends likewise tortured Philotas simply for their own gain", I direct you to Curtius 6.8.2:
Now Craterus, being an especially close friend of the king's, was consequently hostile to Philotas because of their competing for position..."
And then, at 6.8.4:
Believing there would be no better opportunity for crushing his opponent, Craterus masked his personal animosity with feigned loyalty to Alexander ..."
One should also note that it was Craterus who caused Antigone to be brought to Alexander, so that she could repeat Philotas' pillow-talk and incriminate him. In Alexander 49.1, Plutarch even says that Philotas was "ignorant of the plot thus laid against him". In 49.6, Plutarch states: "After the king had once given ear to such speeches and suspicions, the enemies of Philotas brought up countless accusations against him. Consequently he was arrested and put to the question, the companions of the king standing by at the torture, while Alexander himself listened behind a stretch of tapestry."

Some careful reading of the sources, therefore, will make it quite clear that Alexander's friends - particularly Craterus - were all too happy to see the end of Philotas.

There's an excellent article by Waldemar Heckel, "The Conspiracy Against Philotas" (Phoenix, vol 31, 1977, pp.9ff) that you might wish to consider reading, as well.

All the best
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:24 am

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by Semiramis »

marcus wrote:Oh dear. Jan, this is hardly the sort of evidence that is going to back up your statements. Funnily enough, my own atavistic gifts that allow me unexpurgated access to Alexander's mind sometimes shows me something completely different ... :shock:
Marcus, say no to drugs. They're clearly destroying your mind. :?
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by jan »

HI Marcus,

Thanks for reminding me what it sounds like when I suddenly erupt with another of my recollections from the past. Of course, they are not anything but the basis for a novel, not for a history book. I understand well why fiction allows a person to tell a story based upon extraordinary experiences. I do not believe that books and records written 400 years after the life of a man are truly substance or a foundation either. They are all based upon hearsay, and as we are told that Callisthenes knew how to make Alexander's reputation, we cannot even truly believe some of what he had written. I had read once that even Alexander was disgusted with some of his overly flattering statements so that he threw some records into a river. Did I take notes and write which author said that? No, I did not, but I recall it nonetheless. Those are the kinds of things that one doesn't forget.

It is odd at how Callisthenes flattered Alexander early in his youth, but later would not bend on his knees to honor Alexander for a kiss. That has always made me think of the phrase "familiarity breeds contempt".

There are many historians who do list the names of the students who were with Alexander at Mieza. The sons of generals studied to be royal pages, and all became very close and familiar with one another in their tight knit training. I listed all those names, and used them in the novel as I am having to use the time at Mieza to include the Iliad and the stories of Alexander's favorites. To understand Alexander, one must know what he liked and disliked when a youngster, and so I am using the book within a book to teach today's youngsters something about the Iliad and the poetry and stories of other Greek authors who Alexander liked so much.

As for his being merciless, this is how he wanted the world to know him. He wanted people to submit to him and his rule. He believed himself to be the final authority, and death to anyone who did not honor the gods who had told him that he is. I don't recoil at the idea that he is a merciless leader. Had he not been, he would have been easily defeated. However, I know that a secular site will not like it that I will give the gods a lot of credit for assisting Alexander as he fights his foes. Just as they do in the Iliad, they also help Alexander many times, in solving the Gordian knot, in following the snakes or birds to Siwa, in tripping up Philip so that he fell on his face when threatening his son, and other choice moments when a god's interference helps Alexander. That would include the death of Kleitos, Philotas, and Parmenio. So no, it is not wine or drugs that influence Alexander but the gods themselves. Then as Lenin said, religion is an opiate of a kind. In my case, it is Homer. I really liked the Iliad once I got into it.

In truth, I recall that Micahel Woods early on said that many questioned whether Alexander had actually taken the journey that he is said to have taken. So Michael Woods decided to follow it himself to prove that Alexander could and did accomplish that. The story of Alexander is so extraordinary that it means one more book has to be added to the already growing list, and this time, I will make it mine.

My version of Alexander is that he is very sexy, very attractive, very human, very stoic, very muscular, very powerful...the statue that is on the cover of Alexander-Macedon is a great likeness in my opinion to what Alexander appears to his friends. Just throwing in another tidbit that I awoke one time from an erotic vision of Alexander that made me realize why everyone falls in love with him...I had not ever seen him that way until I saw the small, tiny blonde hairs on his chest running down to his hips...I woke up. I was a bit jealous at first, then I relaxed when I realized it was a vision of Alexander, and I caved in.

Finally, I understand why he attracts people to him. Because frankly, he is just one of many who are warriors on the earth, and except for his youthfulness, he is just another militant who made a name for himself. But when I saw that, I saw why Roxanne is so jealous of him, and would kill any other woman who threatened her hold and position with him. Yes, he was that attractive and important. So here I am writing my tale now.
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by Paralus »

Jan you need to have a Bexand a good lie down. If that doesn't work try Menthoids. Either is better than that which you are on.
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
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by marcus »

jan wrote:It is odd at how Callisthenes flattered Alexander early in his youth, but later would not bend on his knees to honor Alexander for a kiss. That has always made me think of the phrase "familiarity breeds contempt".
That's not really quite how it worked, Jan. Earlier on, Callisthenes was flattering Alexander because it was his job to do so, as the official historian of the campaign. The campaign, the war "of revenge" against Persia, was over by the time of the proskynesis affair, and Callisthenes was not obliged to bow to all of Alexander's whims (although, in the long run, it would have been better from a health and safety standpoint had he done so). The idea of paying homage in this way was anathema to Callisthenes, as a Greek - and to many others, as well, Greek and Macedonian - not least because it was part and parcel of Alexander's increasing orientalising, which many of the Macedonians disliked intensely. It wasn't a case of Callisthenes feeling contempt for Alexander through years of knowing him, but a reaction against an un-hellenic ritual.
jan wrote:There are many historians who do list the names of the students who were with Alexander at Mieza.
Many historians suggest the names of Macedonians who are likely to have studied with Alexander at Mieza, but it can only be guesswork, because we are given no list by the ancient sources. There are indications throughout the texts that make the composition of at least part of a list of Alexander's fellow-students possible, but there is no indication that would make us place Philotas as one of them. And as Philotas was probably a few years older than Alexander, that makes him less likely to have been at Mieza with Alexander.
jan wrote:As for his being merciless, this is how he wanted the world to know him. He wanted people to submit to him and his rule.
Could you provide some evidence (other than a dream) for this?
jan wrote: Just as they do in the Iliad, they also help Alexander many times, in solving the Gordian knot, in following the snakes or birds to Siwa, in tripping up Philip so that he fell on his face when threatening his son, and other choice moments when a god's interference helps Alexander. That would include the death of Kleitos, Philotas, and Parmenio. So no, it is not wine or drugs that influence Alexander but the gods themselves.
The only time when there is a suggestion of a god's interference, as far as I remember, is in the descriptions of the death of Cleitus, where Cleitus breaks off in the middle of a sacrifice to go and share some sweet fruit with Alexander, and where Alexander had sacrificed to the Dioscuri and omitted to sacrifice to Dionysus, who then took his revenge by causing Alexander to murder Cleitus. I would love to know how the gods intervened in any of the other instances you mention.
jan wrote:Then as Lenin said, religion is an opiate of a kind.
Karl Marx, actually.
jan wrote:My version of Alexander is that he is very sexy, very attractive, very human, very stoic, very muscular, very powerful...the statue that is on the cover of Alexander-Macedon is a great likeness in my opinion to what Alexander appears to his friends. Just throwing in another tidbit that I awoke one time from an erotic vision of Alexander that made me realize why everyone falls in love with him...I had not ever seen him that way until I saw the small, tiny blonde hairs on his chest running down to his hips...I woke up. I was a bit jealous at first, then I relaxed when I realized it was a vision of Alexander, and I caved in.
If you don't mind, I won't respond to this.
jan wrote: But when I saw that, I saw why Roxanne is so jealous of him, and would kill any other woman who threatened her hold and position with him. Yes, he was that attractive and important.
Except that Roxane was only responsible for killing "other women" after Alexander was dead, not to secure her hold and position with him, but to ensure that her son would be the only possible heir to the empire.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by amyntoros »

jan wrote:...They are all based upon hearsay, and as we are told that Callisthenes knew how to make Alexander's reputation, we cannot even truly believe some of what he had written. I had read once that even Alexander was disgusted with some of his overly flattering statements so that he threw some records into a river. Did I take notes and write which author said that? No, I did not, but I recall it nonetheless. Those are the kinds of things that one doesn't forget.
One might not forget the generalities, but without notes mistakes can be made. This particular incident concerned Aristobulus, not Callisthenes.
Lucian. Volume VI. How to Write History. Chapter 12.
This is what happened to Aristobulus when he wrote of the single combat between Alexander and Porus; he read this particular passage in his work to Alexander thinking to give great pleasure to the King by ascribing falsely to him certain deeds of valour and inventing achievements too great to be true. They happened to be sailing on the River Hydaspes at the time, and Alexander took the book and threw it straight into the water with the remark: “You deserve the same treatment, Aristobulus, for fighting single-handed duels for my sake like that and killing elephants with one throw of the javelin.” Indeed it was certain that Alexander would be angry at such a thing – he had not put up with the effrontery of the engineer who had promised to fashion Athos into his portrait and shape the mountain to the King’s likeness. Alexander at once realized that the man was a flatterer and had no longer employed him.
Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by agesilaos »

One also has to remember that Lucian is a satirist not an historian so this story should not be taken at face value; it is very unlikely that Aristoboulos published in Alexander's lifetime and the architect Alexander is supposed to sack was Dinokrates the designer of Alexandria, the new Temple of Artemis, and the pyre of Hephaistion, he must have been dismissed very late in the reign if this is not just Lucian's imagination.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by amyntoros »

agesilaos wrote:One also has to remember that Lucian is a satirist not an historian so this story should not be taken at face value; it is very unlikely that Aristoboulos published in Alexander's lifetime and the architect Alexander is supposed to sack was Dinokrates the designer of Alexandria, the new Temple of Artemis, and the pyre of Hephaistion, he must have been dismissed very late in the reign if this is not just Lucian's imagination.
Absolutely agree about the questionable truth of the story, however if one chooses to repeat the tale it ought to be told about the right character. :)

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Re: Ancients Behaving Badly

Post by jan »

That is all very interesting, as first of all Thebes is evidence about anyone not submitting to his rule, and that was early on in the game.

As for Callisthenes and Aristobulus, I recall that it had been Callisthenes because when it was discussed, it was also in concert with several other arguments about whether he had been starved to death, had been put to death, or sentenced to being caged. Obviously, as with the kings of France being mixed and confused with one another in their portraits in various magazines and publications, so too, authors can confuse characters of the Alexander age. I remember it because it stuck in my mind at the time about his having early on written about the waters that bowed to Alexander when they first began their journey in crossing a passage way. I thought how odd! But I am accepting Amyntoro's statement about Lucian's comment. I am wondering about the confusion. I thought it peculiar that one overly exaggerated statement would lead to such a reaction many years later; thus, revealing that the travel and journey together had created a friction between them somehow. There appear to be discrepancies regarding how Callisthenes finally died.

I know that Roxanne killed Darius's daughter after Alexander's death to protect her son, but the point was that she was jealous from the time of first meeting to the end. I just phrased it poorly. Thanks for catching that as I liked that distinction. You are correct. I meant my idea is that she is jealous from day one as anyone would be who is "in love" with him.

As for inplying or simply accusing me of using drugs, you are projecting or assuming too much. I rarely take aspirin. I drink coffee, soda, and occasionally a little wine, beer, or even a cocktail but very rarely. I dont' have the finances it takes to have a drug habit. Books are drugs enough for me, and way too expensive as well.

I have used hypnosis as the means to go into trance and to learn of the past, and I would probably consider myself more in line with the Delphic oracles for that reason or Alexander's trusted seer. Alexander himself had dreams in which he believed and relied. But England is such a land of mystics and spiritualists, I am surprised that you are so dubious about those of us who have such experiences. One of my favorites is Ena Twigg, who is an English spiritualist.

As for the appearances of the gods and goddesses in Alexander's journey, I appreciate your mentioning Kleitos's death as an example. I have read also that it was supposed that perhaps an improper sacrifice led to that event. The others that I mentioned are so obvious to me that I would think that anyone would see that. I appreciated the way that Manfredi conjured his idea for the Gordian Knot. Mine is a bit simpler.

But I do cite the Iliad all the way through so that it will make sense when the reader sees the comparisons between Achilles and Alexander.

But once I get the entire novel written, and published, then you can lampoon, dissect, and enjoy it as much you want. At least, by airing some of my ideas now, I get some clarity, and thanks to your reactions, I will be sure to distinguish between Callisthenes and Aristobulus. However, the point of the author who brought that to my attention was that Callisthenes had been in such high favor but suddenly went down fast. I appreciate Amyntoros for citing Lucian's article.

Callisthenes had actually visited Mieza when Alexander was a student there as well, so that the students and Alexander knew who he was long before he became his official historian. He is another who is in the Philotas mold of having spent time together in Alexander's youth but who became a victim for the right or wrong reasons also. I appreciated also the comments about his being a stick in the mud about the Macedonian traditions rather than having "contempt" for Alexander. He had to have had a certain contempt for Alexander to have responded to his having been shunned with the words, "Well, then I won't get a kiss."

A novel is not a history book, or a biography. There is plenty of room to have fun with imagination and dreams. Hopefully, I will get it finished in first draft form soon so that I can then finetune it with the revisions.
Marcus mentioned Ian Worthington, and I wrote a scene especially for him. That is a chapter with the beautiful prostitute that Olympias found for him... :lol:
Post Reply