Concrete Evidence

[jasonxx]

I just wonder. We are all welll aware of sources books etc that may testify to Alexander. I sometimes enjoy conversations with Christians.

One question I as is. What actual concrete evidence is there that the guy even existed. Mostly the only anwres I get is its testified in the Bable. I mean a few concocted stories wrote by his buddies years later. Some even claim there are actual other historical sources. For me debatable and sketchy.

Alas I get asked a return question about Alexander. I can name 2 concrete proofs just off the top of my head; Alexandria and the Causway buit at Tyre. Imsure there are many more. Could Porthonians name any more.

kenny

[rjones2818]

I would mention each of the Alexandrias, burned Persepolis, the heat seared tiles at Babylon, there are decrees and dedications in his name (not many), Chandragupta's being inspired by Alexander. Perhaps the easiest is the money and the Elephant Medallion series.

I'm sure there's more....

[marcus]

I would mention each of the Alexandrias, burned Persepolis, the heat seared tiles at Babylon, there are decrees and dedications in his name (not many), Chandragupta's being inspired by Alexander. Perhaps the easiest is the money and the Elephant Medallion series.

I'm sure there's more....

I'm not sure that "Chandragupta's being inspired by Alexander" counts as the sort of proof that Kenny is after, assuming he's talking about physical, archaeological proof.

Isn't the Azara Herm the one that actually has his name on it? I can't remember the date of it, though - unless it is directly contemporaneous with Alexander I suppose that also doesn't count.

I wonder whether any of the Alexandria's actually count, unless there is a foundation stone with his name on it. After all, Alexandria in Egypt was mostly built by Alexander's successors, rather than by himself, so just going the name isn't, strictly speaking, "concrete" proof.

It's fair to say that it is actually very difficult to find much that can be taken as this sort of proof.

ATB

[ScottOden]

Alexandria in Egypt was mostly built by Alexander's successors, rather than by himself, so just going the name isn't, strictly speaking, "concrete" proof.

Isn't there a saying in archaeology: "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"? I've gotten into similar arguments with some of my more religious friends (especially back in my 'militant atheist' days . . . growing older, I've evolved into a live and let live sort of guy). We went around in circles and really never proved anything to anyone. Probably the best thing you can do -- besides not getting into these sorts of debates in the first place -- is to point to the overwhelming amount of textual and numismatic evidence for Alexander's existence.

Now, whether those documents were forged or if he existed as written is a whole 'nother set of arguments

Scott

[Callisto]

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/Chios/Tod192.jpg

From king Alexander to the people of Chios,
written in the prytany of Deisitheos:
All those exiled from Chios are to return , and the constitution on Chios is to be democratic. Drafters of legislation are to be selected to write and emend the laws so as to ensure that there be no impediment to a democratic constitution and the return of the exiles. Anything already emended or drafted is to be referred to Alexander.

The people of Chios are to supply twenty triremes, with crews, at their own expense, and these are to sail for as long as the rest of the Greek naval force accompanies us at sea.

With respect to those men who betrayed the city to the barbarians, all those who escaped are to be exiled from all the cities that share the peace [of Corinth], and to be liable to seizure under the decree of the Greeks. Those who have been caught are to be brought back and tried in the Council of the Greeks. In the event of disagreement between those who have returned and those in the city, in that matter they are to be judged by us.

Until a reconciliation is reached among the people of Chios, they are to have in their midst a garrison of appropriate strength installed by king Alexander. The people of Chios are to maintain the garrison.

[Paralus]

[Now, whether those documents were forged or if he existed as written is a whole 'nother set of arguments.

And, therein lies the rub. I doubt the documents were 'forged'. Demonstrably, they weren't - particularly the numismatic evidence.

"As written", well, that's a matter of debate. Plutarch apologised at every oportunity. Arrian - for the most part - did the same or excused. The man is in the eye of the beholder.

What is not in debate though is the fact that he was a conqueror: first second and third. If anything comes through from what sources we have it is that.

Anything else - absolutely anything - ran a distant last.

Marcus is right: Alexander might have laid out the perimeter of Alexandria-in-Egypt. He might have set an architecht the job of designing a town. What he demonstrably had nothing to do with (as - like Greece - he never returned) was its construction and development. That ocurred whilst his embalmed eyes watched on in departed impotence.

[jasonxx]

Coins writing and histories Indeed as we may trust them there is an enormous amount of stuff to clarify that Alexander did exist and do things.

Whats true or not can never really be clarified. However rocks stone and monuments are definative that indeed there was an Alexander. I think the most obvious scar that Alexander left was the Tyrian mole. Thats rock solid proof of a siege in which Alexander played the lead roll. Alexandria was his even though he had nothing to do with building it. I guess its like these Lords as the saying goes comisioned the building of so and so palace. Laying some idle claim that they actualy got there hands dirty and built it themselves.

We can trust the histories as they are diverse and some can be prooved by folk law or a little piece of evidence here and there.

However my bone with debates particulaly religions is the stupid notion. It says in the bible or it says in the Koran.I guess anything can and is interpreted from those books as has and could be from an Alexander book. Theres ample proof that Alexander did exist. I read a theory from an Athiest and it is. Theres no actual proof that God Let alone Jesus exists.

Kenny

[athenas owl]

I have no problem believing that the person we called Jesus existed. That his existence was then elaborated on and changed to that of a supernatural being with all the then current religious ideas floating around the East at the time. And that Paul created Chrisitanity as we know it out of his own fevered imagination (but, hey, that's just me).

Separating the historical Jesus from that deification that happened after his death is something else again. Isn't Josephus supposedly the only outside source for the existence of Jesus? I don't find that difficult because at the time that Jesus was teaching and being crucified he was just one among many others. How many did the Romans crucify in their time? Hence no real notice was taken at the time of his existence. But it doesn't mean he didn't exist.

As for Alexander, it seems to me that there are too many other historical people involved for him to be a "creation". The writings of people that hated him survive, the writings of people that loved him. Comtemporary sources are known, decrees are written in stone, coins were minted while he lived. An empire collapsed because of him...and didn't Augustus actually kiss him (breaking his nose in the process)?

[jasonxx]

Athena I Totally believe the sources and histories we are aware about with Alexander. But I just return to the original postings It just made me think about the Stones. Actual evidence one can actually see for ourselves.

I shouldnt but to get in debate with Chritians is a real bum breaker. I once went to an Alpha course, Something in the Uk that is run by Christians. And the idea is that none Christians can ask questions. Well I asked questions and the only answers I got were conundrums and came out with more questions than I went in with. But the questio I asked about proovig Jesus was answered as you can guess. Its in the Bible. And was sebsequently asked where is the proof for Alexander.

I mirrow people saying Jesus the son of god because he made the claim. Im pretty sure Alexander made the same claim so whats the difference.

kenny