Supliants?

[smittysmitty]

I've noticed whilst reading some historical works, that as suppliants, the Greeks were not averse to prostrating, yet it appears to be a major problem when it was requested by ATG? Just thinking out aloud, not even sure what it is I'm trying to say LoL!cheers!

[jan]

GoodGood!

[kalliston]

I'm not certain that a supliant was expected to prostrate himself. I
believe he need only kneel and it was customary to grasp the knees
of the one to whom he was asking for mercy. My take on
prostration is flat out on the floor on your face. By some accounts
knocking your head on the ground at the same time.

[Iskander_32]

The Bottom Line.The Greeks didnt like anything our guy did,other than take credit for Helenism and its spreading by the Macedonian and obviously the weath Alexander poored into Greek coffers.The Greeks woold have prefered Alexander to rot on the Gedrosian dessert with the rest of his Macedonians, So that they could return to there out dated high minded attitudes and life.Does any one here really think The Greeks upset by the death of our king.I figure not.Regar5dsKenny

[marcus]

When Greeks travelled to see the Great King it does appear that they submitted to offering obeisance - however willingly they did it depended on each man's pride. I'm pretty sure there's at least one mention in Herodotus of a Greek who refused.There would have been a big difference between offering obeisance to a *Persian* Great King, as a supplicant, and offering obeisance to a *Macedonian/Greek* Great King as a matter of course. That's probably where the big difference lay.All the bestMarcus

[yiannis]

Absolutelly agree on Marcus comments. It's a matter of who does one prostrates to.Moreover, Greeks prostated asking for mercy (I'm not even sure that that was the case. Prostration was a Homeric custom).
However, deification of a ruler who performed extraordinary deeds was not out of Greek customs. One could be regarded as divine if he performed deeds that were unique or extraordinary.

[amyntoros]

I haven't read Herodotus, but there's one reference in Athenaeus that implies (understatement) that the Greeks did not regularly offer obeisance to the Great King.Athenaeus Book VI 251 a-bEpicrates of Athens, according to Hegesander, when he went on the embassy to the Persian king, accepted many bribes from him, and never scrupled to flatter the king so openly and boldly that he would declare the Athenians ought to choose annually, not nine archons, but nine envoys to send to the king. I wonder, for my part, how the Athenians could have let him go without bringing him to trial, seeing that they fined Demades ten talents for proposing a decree naming Alexander a god, and actually put to death Timagoras because when ambassador to the Persian king he made obeisance to him. Best regards,Linda Ann

[marcus]

I think that's right, that they didn't do it regularly. But they did do it - I suppose depending on how sycophantic they were feeling, and what they *wanted* from Persia :-)All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

Hi,
I've gathered my thoughts now, and worked out what it is I'm trying to say. LoLIt amounts to this. A common theme in modern scholarship is to debate the divinity of ATG and how, when and where it first came to prominence; i.e. it is assumed the divine status attributed to himself evolved over a period of time. I would argue this divine status was not unique to Alexander - and then as imitated by his successors - rather, it had been an inherent part of Macedonian monarchy since its inception. (We'll leave that for another day) In any event, it would appear apparent that divinity and monarchy had, if not always, become an inseparable concept.The point leads me to the issue of court protocol. I find it a little amazing that some form of obeisance did not exist in Macedon, after all, the kings promoted and by all accounts their subjects accepted their divine descent. Their subjects, given the kings divine status, would logically, all be considered his suppliants. I can't then imagine, in the presence of the king, one could get away with a simple "g'day mate". Even today, over two thousand years later, monarchy still warrants its subjects to bow. I came across a couple of examples which in my opinion, may reflect what could have been the norm in the court of Macedon but, for various reasons have not been attested to in the sources. Admittedly, both examples depict persons under duress and do not pertain to ordinary day to day life; however the actions and beliefs do reflect the divine/religious nature of which monarchs not dissimilar to those of Macedon were regarded. They both come from the lives of Plutarch.The first is an account of Themistocles, the man who saved the Greeks from the perils of the Persian invasion. Themistocles at a later stage falls out of favour and is chased by the Spartans and Athenians. He ends up in Epirus at the Molossian kings court, Admetus.Plut: Them, [24] 'He therefore threw himself upon the latter's mercy, by making himself a suppliant to Admetus in a peculiar fashion which is found in no other country. He took the king's young son in his arms and prostrated himself before the hearth, this being the form of supplication which the Molossians consider the most solemn and which it is virtually impossible to refuse.' The other is a little less specific, and perhaps slightly tongue in cheek, but similarly implies the act of obeisance may have been common place. It relates to Pyrrhus of Ep

[smittysmitty]

It relates to Pyrrhus of Epirus who as an infant, seeking refuge from the usurper Neoptolemos II, is taken to the court of the Illyrian king Glaucius.Plut: Pyrrhus, [3] 'Meanwhile Pyrrhus of his own accord crawled along the floor, took hold of the king's robe and pulled him-self up at Glaucius' knees; the king at first burst out laughing, and then was moved to pity, as he saw the child standing there like a suppliant, clasping his knees and sobbing'.

[smittysmitty]

In relationship to prostrating, I dont think the physical form, whether one fell to the ground, sat on his knees or for that matter stood up with his hands facing the heavens made any difference; it was the meaning behind the action that counted.In regards to Greeks frequenting the Persian court, it is my understanding, it was a *must* to prostrate before the king, alternatively, an intermediary was used (most likely a Persian).

[agesilaos]

The Persians expected the Greeks to perform proskynesis but the Greeks accepted or resisted as they chose, much like Victorian gentlemen choosing to kow-tow to the Emperor of China or not.Xenophon has the story of a Theban, I think who used to roll a coin ahead of him and so appear to be bowing when he was merely stooping for his money. This also shows that Greek envoys were expectedto bow rather than grovel on the floor.

[smittysmitty]

Hi Karl,that's fair comment, 'the Greeks accepted or refused as they chose', but those that refused were not likely to get an audience with the Great King!