Steven Pressfield's Research

[amyntoros]

There is an astonishing interview with Steven Pressfield on a science fiction/fantasy site:http://www.thealienonline.net/ao_030.as ... id=2709The interview is fairly unremarkable until this:'Virtues of War may be fiction, but Pressfield has still done his research. "The most interesting fact I found out about Alexander was the rite that was carried out at his father Philip's funeral. We think of Alexander, being a student of Aristotle, as a supremely rational man, a philosopher in his own way. And certainly his military genius was absolutely modern. But here's what they did at Philip's funeral: the corpse of the assassin was exposed, burned, and buried. His two young sons had their throats slit over the grave. Even the horses the assassin planned to use for his getaway were slaughtered at the tomb. Two other princes were executed for complicity. Then Philip's favorite horse and his favourite young wife were slain and buried with him, so that he would have them with him in the life to come. This, to say the least, is not exactly Aristotelian.''Now it may be that Alexander enacted this barbaric rite for the benefit of the army while he himself regarded it with a certain detachment (and I'm sure that's true to some extent), but my instinct tells me that he was quite at home with this sort of ancient, tribal, Homeric hero ritual...'Where on earth did Pressfield do this *research*? Cleopatra was slain and buried with Philip so she would be with him in the life to come???!!! I can't believe I actually read this! And I know that according to Justin, Olympias burnt the body of Pausanias over Philip's tomb, but where does this bit about Pausanias' sons having their throats slit over the grave come from? The rest of this is extremely suspect as well (not to mention the implication that Alexander organized and then sat back and watched this rite), although I'm guessing some of it comes from the description of the remains found at the so-called tomb of Philip, which would explain the reference to horses. However, the part about Philip's wife takes the cake!I've had to keep checking the website while I've been writing this to be sure that I didn't dream it up...Best regards,Linda Ann

[xxx]

Greetings Linda:What it shows naturally, is Steven Pressfield didnGÇÖt do that great of a job of research, but to be honest it takes years of studying then interpreting to be at a decent level. The thing with Cleopatra he probably got from Hammond who believed that Argead Kings were buried with their wives and therefore they had to be killed. I naturally do not agree. In fact with both Tomb I and Tomb II we have Kings who died around the same time their husbands did. I believe most of the other things are referenced in the excellent Death of Philip article on Pothos. It was of course Macedonian GÇÿlawGÇÖ that the male members of a family were extirpated to prevent blood feud. If Pausanias had sons they would have been killed GÇô it would not matter their age. Alexander himself disapproved of this law and struck it down. But he was hardly in a position to do so after the death of Philip having incurred suspicion himself.Regards,Tre

[marcus]

I also liked the bit that follows:"When contemporary scholars are shocked at the brutality Alexander not infrequently meted out to his foes, they might consider the rites enacted over Philip's grave as a sort of window into Alexander's psyche. We know he revered Achilles and the Iliad; we sometimes forget how savage and preliterate (even prehistoric) that antique age was. Look at what Achilles did to Hector*."I'd love someone to explain to me why 'preliteracy' or even 'prehistory' has got anything to do with what Achilles did to Hector.All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

Hi Tre:"The thing with Cleopatra he probably got from Hammond who believed that Argead Kings were buried with their wives and therefore they had to be killed. I naturally do not agree."What a strange belief - I didn't know this about Hammond. Then how does he explain the survival of Olympias and Alexander's three wives? Well, okay, some of them didn't survive too long, but at least they weren't dispatched instantly to be buried at the same time as their husbands! "If Pausanias had sons they would have been killed GÇô it would not matter their age."I don't doubt that, however, Pressfield has them having their throats cut over Philip's grave in some kind of public performance. It appears to be inventiveness rather than poor research. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[marcus]

Hi Linda Ann,I think Tre's dead right, that it comes from Hammond; although I can't remember what his point/argument was. I suppose one could argue that Alexander's wives were a different ball game entirely, or at least Roxane, as she was still pregnant when he died ... perhaps there's a more 'mundane' explanation for Stateira's death than the lurid "Roxane did it" of Plutarch, however? Sorry, that was a bit rambling - anyway, I don't believe it.On Pausanias' sons, I *think* the business of them having their throats cut over the tomb is in Justin - who also has the stuff about Olympias crowning Pausanias' body, etc. I suppose one could read into that what one will ...All the bestMarcus

[kate]

Hi,Maybe Pressfield decided to go with these lurid "facts" because he was being interviewed for a magazine dealing with fantasy and horror and presumably thought a bit of gore would appeal to its readers and induce them to buy his book? I'm not saying he should have included such twaddle, but if it was some sort of marketing angle then it might explain why he was willing to distort the truth.I did like his comment though about Alexander being someone who knew exactly who he was and what he wanted from an early age: that sounds spot-on to me!Cheers,Kate

[marcus]

Yes, a good assessment!It did occur to me, being generous to the fellow, that of course it's possible to misremember things when we're put on the spot, so this might be what happened. Of course, he should have checked his facts first, and maybe asked for a copy of the questions prior to the interview ... or checked and asked them to change his response afterwards ... or maybe he just should have shut up :-)Marcus

[amyntoros]

I can't stand not knowing how Pressfield came up with this. It isn't that I'm anal retentive (I promise I'm not!), but I always wonder if there's some ancient source that has yet eluded me. So last night I went through the histories and the secondary sources that I have so far, and gathered up everything on Pausanias. I found that Justin (11.2) says: "Those privy to the murder were put to death at Philip's burial place."and the Alexander Itinerary (5.xii) says:"Alexander had Olympias for his mother, of the clan of the Aeacidae; his paternity was in doubt since Jupiter Hammon, or King Philip of the Heraclidae, was a rival claimant for so illustrious a descendant. He succeeded Philip as king and avenged him by slaying Pausanias and the latter's three sons for assassinating Philip when he was presiding over the theatre at Aegae."So now Pausanias has *three* sons! It's difficult to know what to make of the Alexander Itinerary (it also says Alexander had shrivelled limbs and a pointed beard!) but I find no other reference to Pausanias having had children. Not exactly a trustworthy source IMHO, but then Pressfield is a fiction writer, so perhaps I'm expecting too much of him. I mean, Paul Doherty is also a fiction writer who decided to his own research into Alexander and then write a "real" history book. And look who he came up with as the murderer of Alexander!Best regards,Linda Ann

[marcus]

Yes, well, Doherty's "real book" is as much fiction as his purported fiction, of course.I'm not sure about Pausanias' sons. Perhaps the bit about them being killed on Philip's tomb is an extrapolation made by Hammond (who I'm sure is where I've read it), based on those tidbits? Actually, it might be in Lane Fox, too - I fear it's a case of trawling through the academics to see who talks about it, and seeing who they cite as references.Oh dear, yet another task to add to my to-do list!MArcus

[jan]

Hi Linda, I enjoyed reading the article, and I wish that someone would write a book on all the stories and legends told about Alexander. I enjoyed the story about the Persians and the Macedonians, and think that a collection of stories would be valuable.If anyone has seen the movie the Great Gatsby, I feel sometimes that Alexander resembles the Gatsby line that he only attracts the empties.

[Linda]

Maybe it was a a bad interview, and the interviewer got it wrong.Or he is like Just william, and falls in love with his own stories until he thinks they are true.They were brutal times, but I was reminded of Callisthenes today when listening to a programme on the radio about Guantanamo Bay - if someone is troublesome, then lock him up, and forget about him, and if he is worn down and dies from disease or torture, then it isn't really your *fault*, and it is a warning to others, without really being a murder or execution. One of the more chilling episodes, I thought. If it is true. worse, somehow, than Cleitus, or Parmenion..

[marcus]

They had a similar idea in the Middle Ages - if you put someone in prison and they starved to death, you didn't *actually* kill them, did you?Unfortunately, it was never quite as foolproof as they thought - the backlash against King John when he did that to Maud de Braose was one of the early events that eventually led to the barons forcing Magna Carta on him. But it seemed like a good idea at the time!All the bestMarcus

[Jeanne]

Research. (G)Oh, I plan to have FUN reviewing this book for my site. Such a bizarre mishmash of things, some accurate, some definitely not, some simple conjecture.So far, I've been vastly amused by his description of Boukephalas as being 17 hands (!), and with IRON armor. LOL! Poor horse. Also, a kausia was a hat, not a helmet. And that's just the beginnings, nevermind the silliness about the Sacred Band.Yet then again, he does understand some of the basics of phalanx style warfare, and some of his statements are sound.My problem with the book is that it's *deceptive*. He managed to make even completely fictional things sound authentic ... which is, I suppose, the goal of fiction. Except that it's misleading. It sounds good enough to be taken for 'history' even when it's patently WRONG. And he even had me scrambling to verify if something was found somewhere in a source, or just made up. (E.g., the names of units was not a Greek fashion -- if they WERE named, it was by tribe or similar, not by fanciful unit names ... a modenr concept.)This has actually proved interesting in that I've set my mil-history grad student to read Pressfield and prepare a list of historical errors, and I'll do the same, then we'll compare notes. It's a good exercise in thinking about the actual, the probably, and the purely fictional. ;>Dr. Jeanne

[xxx]

And I thought torturing grad students with bad books couldn't be fun

[amyntoros]

Ah Jeanne, it'll be good to read an "objective" review of Pressfield's book. Though there are a couple of people here who liked the novel, most comments have been negative and a few people haven't even been able to finish reading it. I'm afraid I found the excerpts on Pressfield's website too boring to even warrant purchasing the book!Best regards,Linda Ann