Alexanders Breastplate, Caligula

[iskander_32]

Companions I just watched a quiz show on our tv, and an answer to a question was that Caligula stole and wore Alexander breastplate when in command of some expedition or prank.May we assume that the Romans looted Alexanders tomb in Alexandria and removed maybe all that was there.Do any members know of this or if the Romans did desecrate and remove items belonging to Alexanders, I would conclude they did and this shows the awe and respect that the Romans actualy did have for Alexander and his achievements.I would not be suprised if they removed nose ole lot, I am aware Augustus broke off his nose and did ask to see the tomb of the king, when he visited if he did remove it then would it be possible that the remains could be some where in the Roman empire ie Rome itself,no one could have stopped them.regardskenny

[ruthaki]

Interesting. Wouldn't surprise me.

[amyntoros]

Frank Holt, in his ATG And The Mystery Of The Elephant Medallions book says this:"An envious Julius Caesar wept in Spain at the mere sight of Alexander's statue. Pompey the Great rummaged through the closets of conquered nations for Alexander's 260-year-old cloak, which the Roman general then wore as the costume of greatness. In his zeal to honor Alexander, Octavian (the future emperor Augustus) accidentally broke the nose off the Macedonian's mummified corpse while laying a wreath at the hero's shrine in Alexandria, Egypt. The unbalanced emperor Caligula later took the dead king's armor from that tomb and donned it for luck." Actually, if Pompey already took Alexander's cloak, then it would surprise me if Augustus had actually left Alexander's armor at his tomb, though it is Suetonius who claims the armor was taken by Caligula. And who knows if it really was Alexander's armor? Does anyone actually believe that the shield Alexander took from Troy *really* had belonged to Achilles? :-)I truly doubt that any Roman Emperor would have removed Alexander's body though. Had they done so, they would certainly have created a new tomb for him in Rome and we would surely have heard about it.Best regards,Linda Ann

[dean]

Hello,Yes it does seem that Julius Caesar compared himself and his achievements to Alexander especially critical about how Alexander managed to do it all so young. (Loved the line that I read on the forum the other week that said, it took Alexander two years or so to subjugate Greece while it took his father 20)
And yet while talking about the Romans, I had read somewhere that generally the Romans had snubbed Alexander's achievements- and he was not held as the model for the perfect king possibly due to his "excesses" while on his eastern campaign. (Maybe he wasn't quite stoic enough for them.)Best regards,
Dean.

[marcus]

I think the Romans had widely differing views - certainly Caesar, Pompey, Augustus, Caligula, Caracalla and Trajan all saw 'good' in him - mainly as a conqueror and perhaps as a divine being; while others, like Lucan and Seneca, could find nothing good to say of him!A bit like today's community, really :-)All the bestMarcus

[dean]

Hi Marcus,Yes you do have a point. I suppose that Octavius would not have bothered paying a homage to him otherwise.The emperor that I had in mind was Marcus Aurelius- who supposedly said that although Alexander was a great man of action nevertheless, hadn't understood fully the principals of philosophy- (Meditations- Marcus Aurelius Book VIII 8.3)Best regards,
Dean.

[marcus]

I suppose Marcus Aurelius' viewpoint was as a philosopher (pace Seneca) rather than as a military man (although his reign was one of impressive military victories, so he could so easily have taken the other view!)All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

'it took Alexander two years or so to subjugate Greece while it took his father 20'Sorry to cut in, but I find this kind of statement a little hard to ignore, and although tempted to let it go, I couldn't allow to pass it up.That kind of comment is utter nonsense! and makes for a bad understanding of ATG; It may sound good in romantic novels but it's about a million miles from reality. The attempt to agrandize his achievment over his fathers is totaly rediculous, had his fathers twenty years of achievment not existed, ATG may have been known simply as Alexander the Barbarian!, if known at all.Let's put it into perspective!cheers!

[maciek]

Marcus Aurelius was philosopher who fought almost all his life like the worrior. That is very interesting person - he knew that he had to leave his philosophy to a more peacefull times (which never came). I think (what I wrote in my master degree work) that Alexander was converely - more soldier but he also liked arts which were parts of philosophy then - medicine, geography and of course philosophy itself also. But surelly in him always worrior was on the first place:-))
Well in Alexandria archeologists are very active so maybe we finally find out something new about him. I think in Itally the chance to find such great artifact is much smaller...
Maciek

[yiannis]

Interest topic. However, let us not forget that Alexander, after the execution of Callisthenes, was extremelly unpopular amongst the philosopher's circles and was mercilessly slandered.So, it's understandable why Marcus Aureluus and others shared negative feeling on Alexander's "humane" qualities.

[maciek]

I don't like the alternative history like that- what could happened if Philip doesn't conquere the Greece befor Alex... But this is obviouse true - that Alex continuated the job of Philip in Greece. In my opinion he did it better but it was only continuation - so we can't compare Phillip's 20 years to Alexander's two... Maciek

[marcus]

There does appear to be some controversy about when the philosophical anti-Alexander feelings started, but in certain circles they certainly latched on to the fate of Callisthenes as an example of why they were hostile.All the bestMarcus