Alexanders body/height

[conan]

This is in relation to the section on Alexanders body/ height in the main website"Arrian said he was somewhat less than average height, Curtius that he was not of impressive physique and/or stature. Existing art shows him to be muscular with good length of leg and somewhat stocky, so Curtius must be referring to his height."I do not believe Curtis is refering to his height but indeed his build. If he had been of fine muscular stock then I believe it would have been refered to. Going of ancient paintings or images of Alexander as referance to his build should be treated with great caution. As it is common for such heroic historic figures to be given fine male physics in such mosaics and paintings recalling there deeds.I am by no means an expert on Alexander it is just my observation of the section on Alexanders body/height.I would be grateful if people could point me in the direction on further references on Alexanders body/height.The only way these questions however will be truly answered is if his body is ever found.

[Efstathios]

Yes, but on the other hand Alexander always kept himself fit.All over greece they had gymnasiums,and since they were little boys they went there and exercised.And when a man exercises from a small age he usually builds a good structure of body.Not in all occassions of course, but in most. As a prince Alexander must have been in the gymnasium almost every day among his other activities like studying e.t.c. And also judging from the fact that he was so fierce and effective warrior in the battles he must have had a fit body.Some of the statues are not that muscular.They just depict a normal fit body.Heck,my body is like this and i havent been working out for 5 years now.I used to when i was younger and maybe this affected my body structure in an extend.And dont forget that Alexander didnt eat a lot so that he had extensive fat in his body or a belly... As for his height he wasnt very tall,but he wasnt Napoleon either.He must have been around 1.75 or maybe even 1.80 if we consider the fact that Macedonians were a tall race.

[Athanasios]

In agrement, Efstathios.Of course, cannot confirm his height, but there is a REAL difference in the physique of a man that is physical as a way of life compared against one that works out here and there in the gym...For example, take Bradd Pitt as Achilles in Troy. Good physique, but muscle tone was too tight. You would expect - irrespective of bulkiness - a longer, toned muscleness.Talking of physique, you may be interested to hear that in a recent Greek study, the bodies of men and women were assessed pre and post exercise. The hip:waist ratio - a strong indicator of PHYSICAL ATTEACTIVENESS - did not change significantly in women IRRESPECTIVE of weight loss. However, for men, there was a drastic difference...Something to consider about our genetic make-up...Regards,
Atha

[jan]

This is an interesting question, and there must be some good reason why you are so interested in the physical appearance of a man who can kill a lion barehanded, who can tame an unruly and temperamental horse when only a child, and who can keep and maintain an entire army under control. Stories and anecdotes seem to indicate that when on a long march that he would exercise by jumping on and off a wagon, that he would exercise constantly through hunting and riding, so it is very probable that he is very muscular and well developed as most illustrations and artist's renditions seem to indicate.

[marcus]

"I do not believe Curtis is refering to his height but indeed his build."Of course, the problem is that Curtius was writing long after Alexander's death, and the way that he describes Alexander should not be assumed to be accurate.I don't have a copy of the original Latin, so I don't know what word is used - it might be unambiguous in the Latin ... does anyone have it to check?ATBMarcus

[azara]

In Curtius VII,8,8 some Scythian ambassadors meet the king and are disappointed:"GǪcredo, quia magnitudine corporis animum aestimantibus modicus habitus haudquaquam famae par videbaturGǥ.
In VI, 5, 29 Thalestris, queen of the Amazons, visits Alexander: GÇ£Interrito vultu regem Thalestris intuebatur habitum eius haudquaquam rerum famae parem oculis perlustransGÇ¥.
In III, 12,16 it is said about Hephaistion that GÇ£ sicut aetate par erat regi, ita corporis habitu praestabatGÇ¥.
So the word is "habitus".With my best regards Azara

[alejandro]

Hi all,

I was thinking whether art could help us in estimating Alex's height, and so I searched for this thread.

My idea is that if statues of Alexander are lifelike, we could get a sufficiently good estimate of his height. That is, either you have a life-size statue (and that would be optimal) or you have statues that are a scaled-down version of his true self (and then one could use the scale for retrieving his true height, or if the scale is unknown, one can use some relationships between different parts of the body -say, the length of the femur bone- to get some upper and lower bounds).

Even more, if we knew of any kind of clothing/armour that was actually worn by Alexander (not that I am aware of any, but maybe there are some items available in some museums?), then the error could be greatly decreased.

Of course, this greatly relies on the accuracy of the painting/statue, and I wouldn't be surprised if the artist -willing to favour his powerful employer- would have twisted the proportions in order to convey a more heroic figure. I guess he would not be above "copying-and-pasting" Alex's head onto an athlete's body (no photoshop though! )

Also, Alex was especially touchy in terms of who could represent him, and held strict control over his "image rights" , so in his case artistic representations would be particularly unreliable, it seems.

Anyway, just some thoughts I had and wanted to share.

Best,
Alejandro

[marcus]

Of course, this greatly relies on the accuracy of the painting/statue, and I wouldn't be surprised if the artist -willing to favour his powerful employer- would have twisted the proportions in order to convey a more heroic figure. I guess he would not be above "copying-and-pasting" Alex's head onto an athlete's body (no photoshop though! )

Hi Alejandro,

I reckon you've hit upon the main problem with using art to try and establish a "truth". One only has to look at the statue of Napoleon that stands in Apsley House (Wellington's London home), or, indeed, David's 1800 painting of Napoleon crossing the Alps, to know that the paintbrush and the sculptor's mallet can very easily "lie".

ATB

[amyntoros]

My idea is that if statues of Alexander are lifelike, we could get a sufficiently good estimate of his height. That is, either you have a life-size statue (and that would be optimal) or you have statues that are a scaled-down version of his true self (and then one could use the scale for retrieving his true height, or if the scale is unknown, one can use some relationships between different parts of the body -say, the length of the femur bone- to get some upper and lower bounds).

Of course, this greatly relies on the accuracy of the painting/statue, and I wouldn't be surprised if the artist -willing to favour his powerful employer- would have twisted the proportions in order to convey a more heroic figure. I guess he would not be above "copying-and-pasting" Alex's head onto an athlete's body (no photoshop though! )

You are right about twisting the proportions, plus you would probably have difficulty getting a true picture of Alexander’s height and build even if we had access to say, one of Lysippus’ original bronze statues. Even if it appeared to be life-size is doesn’t follow that it would be accurate. Alexander was supposedly shorter than average and if his statues were ever to be placed near any others I doubt that he would want to be seen as “less” than someone else. Personally, I suspect that Lysippus and any other sculptor would have made all statues of Alexander larger than life (unless they were intended to be miniatures). Giving the illusion of greater height seems to have been important – see this quote from Pliny. (It’s at the end of 9.34.61-65; probably around 64-65. I don’t have the exact reference, sorry.)

Lysippus is said to have contributed greatly to the art of bronze statuary by representing the details of the hair and by making his heads smaller than the old sculptors used to do, and his bodies more slender and firm, to give his statues the appearance of greater height. He scrupulously preserved the quality of ‘symmetry’ (for which word there is no word in Latin) by the new and hitherto untried method of modifying the squareness of the figure of the old sculptors, and he used commonly to say that whereas his predecessors had made men as they really were, he made them as they appeared to be. A peculiarity of this sculptor’s work seems to be the minute finish maintained in even the smallest details.

And as you can see from the above, even the build of the subject was modified in the sculpture.

Best regards,

[alejandro]

Marcus and Amyntoros,

Yeah, I didn't have many expectations, but, well, one never loses hope!

Best,
Alejandro

[jan]

I just had to respond to this, since I just found it first, and while Alexander may have been described as shorter, it is because the Macedonians according to an author I read had described them as being very tall, the land of the tall people they were called, so even if he had been an inch shorter, he would have still been above average and not considered short at all. Short in comparison to whom or what?

[Callisto]

The following quotes are from Alexander the Great: Historical Sources in Translation By J C. Yardley, Waldemar Heckel, p 39.

While [Hephaestion] was the king's age, in stature he was his superior, and so the queens took him to be the kind and did obeisance before him after their manner. Whereupon some of the captive eunouchs pointed out the real Alexander, and Sisigambis flung herself at his feet apologizing for not recognizing him on the ground that she had never before seen him.

Q. Curtius Rufus 3.12.16

The king had a strange experience when he took possession of the treasure. He sat on the royal throne and found this was too large for his own physical dimensions. One of the pages saw that Alexander's feet were far from reaching the footstool for the throne, and so he brought Darius' table and slipped it under his feet as they dangled in the air.

Diodorus Sic. 17.66.3

Thalestris looked at the king, no sign of fear on her face. Her eyes surveyed a physique that in no way matched his illustrius record - for all barbarians have respect for physical presence, believing that only those on whome nature has throught fit to confer extraordinary appearance are capable of great achievements

Q. Curtius Rufus 6.5.29

Porus was pleased with this and undertook to fight a duel with Alexander; for he saw that in physical size Alexander was no match for him. Porus was five cubits tall, and Alexander not even three

Alexander Romance 3.4

The last quote is problematic. The evidence is not clear which cubit is being used. The attic is 18 1/4 inches while the Macedonian cubit is around 13/14 inches. It would help also in order to have a better understanding of heights among Macedonians to know exactly who's the owner of the armor, found in tomb II in Vergina.