the sources, Cassander and Alexander

[abm]

In the discussion about Cassander we addressed the question of his campaigning with Alexander and the related source problems. IGÇÖll start with two quotes which perfectly reflect my own views.GÇ£The figure of Alexander the Great inevitably dominates the history of his reign. Our extant sources are centrally focused upon the king himself. Accordingly it is his own military actions which receive the fullest documentation. Appointments to satrapies and satrapal armies are carefully noted because he made them, but the achievements of the appointees are passed over in silence. The great victories of Antigonus which secured Asia Minor in 323 B.C. are only known from two casual references in Curtius Rufus, and in general all the multifarious activities in the empire disappear from history except in so far as they impinge upon court life in the shape of reports to Alexander and administrative decisions made by him.GÇ¥ [A.B. BOSWORTH, GÇÿAlexander the Great and the Decline of MacedonGÇÖ, Journal of Hellenic Studies 106 (1986), pp. 1-12, on p. 1]GÇ£There is at least one case were omission is as obvious insertion: the failure to mention AlexanderGÇÖs sexual relations with Barsine. Now we know that Curtius was aware of the relationship, since he mentions BarsineGÇÖs child by Alexander at X 6.11. But he does not tell us that Barsine was the first woman with whom Alexander had been intimate (Plut. Alex. 21.7, from Aristoboulos) nor does he describe their meeting after her capture at Damascus (cf. Justin XI 10.2 GǪ). (GǪ) But the omission was deliberate. Curtius had just praised Alexander for his self-control (continentia) with respect to the Persian princesses and their mother (GǪ) (III 12.21-23). (GǪ) Curtius would have stultified his entire argument if had proceeded, in the following chapter, to recount how Alexander was overcome with desire for the beautiful captive, Barsine, and how he fathered on her the child Hercules! For it was AlexanderGÇÖs continentia, and condemnation of sexual impropriety in general, at least early in the campaign (cf. Plut. Alex. 22), which mattered more than the status of the woman.GÇ¥ [W. HECKEL, GÇÿNotes on Q. CurtiusGÇÖ History of AlexanderGÇÖ, Acta Classica 37 (1994), pp. 67-78, on p. 72]And this then is a case where (1) we know there is an omission and (2) we can prove Curtius had a purpose in omitting. There evidently are many instances in which we donGÇÖt even know that there is an omission and/or for which there is no real purpose or at least we can

[abm]

or at least we can not prove there is one.This is not to say that we can not trust our sources, because in general we can, if we are critical [on the confidence Curtius basicly deserves, see most recently A.B. BOSWORTH, GÇÿPlus +ºa changeGǪ Ancient Historians and their SourcesGÇÖ, ClAnt 22 (2003), pp. 167-197]. It does mean, however that if something is not attested in our sources, it is difficult to conclude anything from that silence. If we have sound arguments, however, to suppose that an event occured although it isnGÇÖt mentionned in the sources, we should carefully consider accepting it, at least as a valid hypothesis. Cf. The general remarks of S. Hornblower, Greek Historiography, Oxford 1994, p. 71: GÇ£But arguments from silence are, like many of the arguments we have been considering, treacherous in that they often assume a perfectly conscientious (rather than lazy or slapdash) historian whose aim was the recording of fact (rather than the achieving of a literary creation).GÇ¥On Cassander campaigning with Alexander I recalled to be convinced a couple of years ago by AdamsGÇÖ article 'Cassander and the Crossing of the Hellespont: Diodorus 17, 17, 4', in Ancient World 2 (1979), pp. 111-115, that Cassander had campaigned with Alexander and thus that there were arguments for it. Apparently, however, I was a little too harsh, since I wasnGÇÖt recalling entirely correctly: Adams argued that after he had crossed the Hellespont with Alexander Cassander stayed in Asia Minor, cooperating with Antigonos, which does, however, imply that he campaigned with Alexander during the first year. As for his arguments, I should find the time to check them first.regards,abm

[kenny]

No disrespect AlexanderBut I think you need a Cassander group as it seems you are very interested in the guy, I would assume that most porthonians knowledge on Cassander is very small.My own viewpoint for Cassander was that I believe he sailed across from Macedonia to argue his fathers and his own case,,, And also to get rid of Alexander whose very returning threatened Antipater and himself directly.You will have your own opinion as will most porthonians,, Most Porthonians would disagree with my opinion but its mine and ill stick to it.Cassander was nothing but for one way or another getting his hands on part of Alexanders empire.Kenny

[Halil]

Hello AlexanderNo offence either, but I've got to admit, my eyes glazed over reading this. I guess it doesn't matter how erudite you make it, Cassander is a boring topic for an Alexandrophile after a hard day with Active Directory security checklists zzzzzzzzzzzzzzRegardsHalil

[abm]

no offense taken, and again no offense, but I didn't know that what Bosworth says in the qoute above on the sources also goes for people on this forum. I'm not interested in Cassander any more than in the rest of the age of Alexander and the Diadochoi, but i am interested in all aspects of this period and Cassander is just one of them.
Some people apparently got the impression that quoting scholarly literature is some kind of arrogant hobby of mine, but there simply are good reasons for that:
(1) no one can get passed the fact that these scholars know a lot more about Alexander than any of us does
(2) their english is better than mine
(3) everyone can check on what my views are based (if they want to and if they want to, they aren't obliged to do so)
regards,
abm

[agesilaos]

I would contest point one any one here has access to the same sources and every professor has clay feet even Bosworth errs. But it is good to quote these articles since it is time consuming and, thanks to the persistant drive to dumb Britain down, expensive to obtain them yourself.Diodorus XVII 17 iv would be the only evidence for Cassander crossing the Hellespont, he makes him commander of the Thracian and Paeonian scouts; however he is unattested in this post at the Granicus and, despite the fact that Ptolemy may have harboured a grudge (Cassander being dead when he wrote his 'History') I find it hard to believe that Arrian would have passed him over in silence. It is more likely he remained with his father in Macedonia until sent to Babylon. But the evidence is inconclusive as you say

[Halil]

Hello AlexanderCassander is a boring topic to me, I can't help that - my interest in the period starts and ends with ATG - but I admire your stamina.CheersHalil

[ruthaki]

Well, Kenny, I think I go with your theory.

[marcus]

Hi Alexander,I agree - and I hope nobody *actually* thinks that quoting sources, ancient and modern, is a bad thing.Anyway, discussing Cassander is perfectly reasonable on an Alexander forum - we should be discussing anything connected with him that is of interest and/or use. Considering some of the threads that appear on this forum your discussion with Tre was ultra-relevant!I wouldn't go as far as Halil and say that Cassander bores me - however, I really don't know that much about him (because I haven't studied the Diadochi in any detail) ... but I learned a heck of a lot more through trawling through your and Tre's posts. Keep it up, I say!All the bestMarcus

[abm]

Hi Karl,of course I didn't mean Bosworth or any other professor is always correct, because as you said, everybody errs. What I did mean is that that for them studying Alexander is almost a full-time occupation, while it is only a hobby for most of us here, and many of them are probably older than most people here and thus engaged with Alexander studies for a longer time.regards,abm

[agesilaos]

But by the same token, studying things too much can lead to a sort of blindspot; take Hammond's take on the Ephemerides, for instance. I don't say everyone is upto speed with the pros but the only difference is really that they get paid for our hobby (and are probably better with the original languages). I'm just an advocate of good old fashioned pagan self-confidence.Unfortunately I've missed these threads on Cassander but I have always wondered whether he is not the victim of Ptolemaic/Antigonid smear tactics, after all the most famous anecdote (the head-banging) is first related with Leonnatus as the protagonist. Like Lysimachos he was consistently against Hieronymos' Antigonid patrons and did not manage to last long enough for Ptolemy to effect a dynastic marriage. The story of his conflict with Alexander smacks of post-Babylon propaganda, after all Alexander's MO was to to keep his enemies with him, leaving him in Macedonia with his father speaks greatly for the trust he placed in both of them.

[abm]

basicly, that's is also my view on Cassander's image.