Did Alexander kill his father to become king?

[marcus]

Hi Goce,I don't think Olympias would have been tortured with the thought of being non-Macedonian. There might have been many reasons for her to want Philip dead, but that was unlikely to have been one of them.All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

Hi Linda,you raise some excellent points, I particularly like the Achillies/house of Apollo connection,. well done. :)Too be honest Linda, I'm not a fan of the belief that ATG took the mythological characters of Achillies,Heracles, Dionysus etc, too seriously. I'm more inclined to believe that much of this was a result of our sources own predisposition with mythology, and perhaps more so the result of the poets and story tellers which accompanied ATG on his campaigns. As to the matter of religion, I seriously question if we know anything at all of what ATG and the Makedones believed. I guess it's a case of trying to seperate what is poetry and what is history, fact/fiction,. For my mind, the connection of Achillies, the Illiad etc, is nothing more than poetic license, but thats my opinion, and perhaps, judging from this forum my opinion alone :(Either way, makes for a good read and fun. :)Cheers!

[amyntoros]

Hi Smitty:I fully understand your point of view - I know we have plenty of archeological and written evidence of "how" and "who" the ancient Greeks and Macedonians worshipped, but I accept we can't get into Alexander's head to measure the full extent of his beliefs. The one thing I did want to point out for my side of the argument is your quite appropriate use (by today's standards) of the word mythology. To US they are just stories - to the ancients they were the foundation of their faith and completely real. Look at Hinduism today - people outside the faith may view the stories of their gods as myths or "fairy" tales to be told to children, but to believers it is a real, true religion that has lasted thousands of years. And to people outside of Christianity, much of the bible is considered to be a myth, yet no one today would challenge whether a self-proclaimed Christian truly believed. :-)I look at the Ancient Greeks and Macedonians from that point of view and I have no problem accepting that Alexander was deeply religious and wasn't just putting on a show. For example, look how he desperately wanted deification for Hephaistion, but was happy to accept his being honored as a "hero." According to ancient beliefs, demi-gods (such as a son of Zeus!) and heroes would have joined the gods on Olympus after death. Hephaistion, if he died only a mere mortal, would not! :-)All the best,Linda Ann

[amyntoros]

Oh, please do go ahead and write the book Marcus. I'd certainly love to read it! :-)Regards,Linda Ann

[alejandro]

Hi MarcusI can come to terms with your idea that his attitude changed as time went on, but I still believe that omens/portents were also public affairs. Usually they were performed before an important battle or campaign, and were important for the morale of the army.I recall mostly two: the one before attacking the Scythians and the one before turning back in India.In the first case, the omens were negative for three consecutive times, so the last time Alexander asked whether the omen was for the men or for himself, and the answer being GÇ£for himselfGÇ¥, he attacked. The key point here was that Alex needed to chastise the Scythians in order to secure the borders, but the army morale would be too low if they campaigned under a bad omen. When their leader decided to attack in spite of the risk involved, they were confident again, and their morale redoubled as to avoid anything ominous happening to Alex. Of course, the omen was fulfilled, but not because of the Scythians but the Oxos water. In any case, the omen had the function of boosting morale, and so he found a way of turning a bad omen into a (relatively) good one, ensuring the achievement of his goal. What an example of spin doctoring! Tony and George WGÇÖs lesson: GÇ£Twist facts until they fit your purposesGÇ¥.The second one was another brilliant political move by Alex. In this case, whichever the omenGÇÖs result, he knew there was no hope of changing the menGÇÖs mind: they were determined to return. Hence, he used them for a simple reason: to avoid GÇ£losing faceGÇ¥. The sacrifices were negative every time, and so he decided to stop there, built the famous pillars, and went back to Babylon. Tony and George WGÇÖs lesson: GÇ£Minimize your losses!GÇ¥ or GÇ£If you canGÇÖt beat them, join themGÇ¥.The only GÇ£privateGÇ¥ omen that I remember (ie, besides the all-famous one of Siwah, but nobody knows for sure what it said -which gave Alex a lot of leeway by the way!- so cannot be properly analysed) is the one by the soothsayer who prevented him about the pagesGÇÖ conspiracy. But I donGÇÖt know how reliable the story isGǪ Tony and George WGÇÖs lesson: GÇ£I donGÇÖt believe in witches, but I am sure they existGÇ¥ ;)In terms of portents, the only one I can think of is the moon eclipse a few days before Gaugamela. Again, he interpreted it such that it suited his objective. He knew (most likely Aristotle taught it him) that it was a natural phenomenon, but he needed to counteract the fear such an eclipse would can generate in his sold

[alejandro]

In terms of portents, the only one I can think of is the moon eclipse a few days before Gaugamela. Again, he interpreted it such that it suited his objective. He knew (most likely Aristotle taught it him) that it was a natural phenomenon, but he needed to counteract the fear such an eclipse would can generate in his soldiers. In GÇ£The Persian BoyGÇ¥ Renault says (itGÇÖs fiction, but seems very likely something like that actually happened) that Persians were also afraid of it, but one military leader (Mazaios?, Nabarzanes?) said that the bad omen was for the Macedonians, since the moon was GÇ£a wanderer, as Alexander isGÇ¥. So this is, again, another piece of spin doctoring (on both sides). Tony and George WGÇÖs lesson: GÇ£Never let a piece of bad news deviate you from your path to your goalGÇ¥.
So, I think that even if we restrict our analysis to omens and portents, the GÇ£religiousnessGÇ¥ (I donGÇÖt know if such a word exists!) of Alexander cannot be proved.I totally agree that his skepticism grew with time. My main point is, simply, that it didnGÇÖt need to grow much!All the bestAlejandro

[lucinos]

I think is useful to know a saying that we say in Greece (still today) but it is ancient, it goes
"anagka kai theoi peithontai"
a free translation is: needs must when the devil drives. It realy means that you can convice the gods that what you need is the right thing you should do. I am absolutely sure that Alexander was using this. When he was explaining the omens in the way he wanted it was not an unreligious act for the Greeks but an exhibition of greek philosophy (which Alexander knew very well)

[xxx]

You are of course entirely correct. Alexander took his 'religion' very seriously, although religion is not quite the term one should use. The fact that he continued in his religious duties while he was severely ill, having himself carried out to do so until he could no longer move, pretty much kills any argument that suggests otherwise. And that he didn't believe in Achilles and the gods? Unthinkable for a man of his time, and certainly for any Macedonian or Epirot from the royal houses. Achilles was his hero, his ancestor and the Iliad his favorite book. How careful he was when he went to Troy, to make sacrifice for both sides of the war because the blood of both sides ran in his veins. I mean, heck, Christians believe a man was the son of God and rose from the dead, why could Alexander not believe in his own Gods and ancestry?

[smittysmitty]

You forget to mention the episodes of Hephaestion laying a wreath on the tomb of Patroclus, or that of Alexander laying a wreath on the tomb of Achilles calling his hero a lucky man having Homer immortalize his name.They too are a lovely embellishment Historical? - ... Nice bit of Literature?
You are entirely correct re. Argeads openly advertising their ancestral claims to be descended from Heracles and Achillies!Anything else would be unthinkable for an Argead! Good point

[xxx]

Alexander not visit the Tomb of Achilles? Also unthinkable. Historical, not literary.

[smittysmitty]

Pardon the smile on my face.
and how do you ascertain this is historical?

[xxx]

And how do you ascertain it's not? That is the more important question. What do you find unbelievable about the scenario?

[smittysmitty]

Even bigger smile on my face.Interesting twist, how do I ascertain it is not!I at least make my comments with the addition of a question mark
where as you make them with 'unthinkable'certainty and yet its for me to ascertain that it is not history! hmmmm

[amyntoros]

Hello Smitty:I'm genuinely intrigued - why do you think that the wreath laying on the tombs (and presumably also the "race" around them) might be only a literary embellishment?You already know my position in this debate on A's attitude to his gods and ancestors, and I'm not trying to further my argument here - I'm just curious. I mean, we all know that Alexander was partial to a grand gesture, so whether the events at the tombs are viewed as evidence of Alexander's "faith" or just seen as more showmanship, either way I can't see a particular reason for doubting their historical accuracy.

[marcus]

It's an interesting one, isn't it?I have to say that I cannot *believe* that Alexander would have gone to Asia Minor and *not* visited the tomb of Achilles. I know that isn't really enough to ascertain historical certainty... but it would have been so completely unthinkable that he wouldn't have gone...Hmm, so much for historiographical process, eh? :-)All the bestMarcus