Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:16 am
I see where you're coming from. But I find this supposed dichotomy between "history books" and "religious books" a bit rich, if we're talking about a period so long ago. The supposed "non-religious" sources about Alexander are full of stories about gods too. Including Olympias' womb being struck by Zeus' thunderbolt, Artemis' temple burning down because she was busy overseeing Alexander's birth, talking snakes guiding Alexander's party to the Oracle of Siwa (according to Ptolemy himself, who was there!). Zoroastrian sources don't just mention the divine but mundane worldly things like Alexander killing priests etc. If we're going back 2500 years, information is already scarce and unreliable. One would expect a historian to critically evaluate every available source when trying to construct a picture. The Babylonian astronomical diaries, for example, are an invaluable source for reconstructing and historical events, including Alexander's life. The priests may have thought the stars' and planets' movements were directed by gods to indicate mankind's future. But the scientific methods of astronomy and meticulous recording of historical events can't be denied.aleksandros wrote:Seramis
yes cause when it comes to history i study history books and not relegion ones. of course i cannot argue with you if you feel that zoroastrian sources help you better understand alexander.Do you find the Zoroastrian sources less reliable than the Greek and Roman ones? If so, why?
you used the word reliable. well no, i dont find zoroastrian sources less reliable, but they are still the reliable point of view of a priest.