A son of Alexander in 326, cont'd

[xxx]

Amyntas Perdikka...

[amyntoros]

I can't quite make up my mind if there is an emotional factor in this discussion that I'm not *getting*."What I am stating is that one cannot matter of factly assume history based on some words written in a book, without analyzing it from different perspectives. I am not saying I am correct, but that thereGÇÖs more to it than just reading history."
Tre, this is a doozy. What the heck does it have to do with anything I said? Show me where I'm assuming history from some words written in a book. And the one thing I did most obviously here is to analyze this question from a different perspective. I'm utterly flabbergasted at this remark. It seems designed only to discredit my opinions.

[xxx]

I can't quite make up my mind if there is an emotional factor in this discussion that I'm not *getting*. No, there is no emotional factor in the discussion GÇônot on my part."What I am stating is that one cannot matter of factly assume history based on some words written in a book, without analyzing it from different perspectives. I am not saying I am correct, but that thereGÇÖs more to it than just reading history." Tre, this is a doozy. What the heck does it have to do with anything I said? Show me where I'm assuming history from some words written in a book. And the one thing I did most obviously here is to analyze this question from a different perspective. I'm utterly flabbergasted at this remark. It seems designed only to discredit my opinions.ThereGÇÖs a difference between discredit and disagree. I apologize if you donGÇÖt see the difference in what I wrote or for not being clear. For instance, you are certain there were other pregnancies and issues from Philip, that he was concerned with the succession and that Alexander was not. I donGÇÖt happen to agree, and you shouldnGÇÖt be flabbergasted about that:-)

[amyntoros]

GÇ£I suppose my main point is that because Philip did not have a lot of children, doesn't necessary mean that babies died.GÇ¥ItGÇÖs a very valid point, no question about it. And the point of my post was that just because there is no mention of deceased children doesnGÇÖt mean that they didnGÇÖt exist! But I know that you know that! There arenGÇÖt any figures for infant mortality and related deaths, of course, but I would suspect that it was at least as high as Victorian England. Not to bring up another emotional topic, but the death of Stateira is a case in point. After having had three children successfully, she supposedly died in childbirth. Whether we believe this was the case or not, the historians obviously didnGÇÖt think there was anything remarkable about her dying for such a reason, which tells us much about deaths due to pregnancy. The same would apply to the survival of infants. I really hate drawing modern parallels, but without the medical knowledge we have today, my mother, my sister, my sister-in-law and myself would all have died in childbirth, and even if they survived the birth, my brother, my son, and two nieces would have died as infants, and my sister as a young child. Stateira rates a mention in the history books because of the situation she was in when she died. In the case of Philip, the deaths of wives, unsuccessful births, or infantile deaths wouldnGÇÖt have raised an eyebrow.SusanGÇÖs website is below. There are a couple of new files ready to be uploaded, one being excerpts from Polyaenus, but Susan is busy on other matters right now. However, within a month the new additions should be up, and unless anyone tells me otherwise (again) I think that Athenaeus, a most entertaining writer, can go back on the site. If thereGÇÖs anyone you are particularly interested in, you can always email me or Marcus. If we have the file, weGÇÖll send it to you. :-)http://websfor.org/alexander/home/home.aspATBAmyntoros

[amyntoros]

Tre, I never said I was *certain* that there were other pregnancies and issue from Philip. I made a strong case, IMO, that there could/should have been - and that these would not have warranted mention in the history books. That Alexander wasn't concerned with the succession is obvious; that Philip wasn't is a very debatable point. However, I know that you don't agree with me and I don't expect you to do so. It's the way that you expressed yourself at the end of your post that stunned me. I have absolutely no idea how anyone reading this thread could accuse me of not analyzing the history from a different perspective, or of "matter of factly assuming history based on some words in a book." Enough, enough from me. Yes, there is a difference between "discredit" and "disagree", but the difference isn't particular clear here. However, you apologized for the very reason of it being unclear and it would be ungracious of me not to accept. If I have misunderstood your intent then I proffer my own apologies. Let's move on back to the debate. Amyntoros

[xxx]

OK - on to the debate - How are you sure it was obvious Alexander wasn't concerned about the succession? Perhaps he wanted his friend to succeed him and choose and that man died necessitating a change in plans...and perhaps in fact, there were very good reasons why he waited to have offspring and perhaps he wished that his first would be Persian and Statiera was too young to marry and the kingdom was not settled...sometimes plans just don't work out

[Linda]

Thank you for the link.Yes, I do have a tendency to start of putting a different point, and then agreeing with the original poster. I am getting therapy for it.One of the databases I do have access to at work is a medical one, so I'll see if there is anything about infant mortality in the ancient world - I know it must be difficult to assess, but someone must have had a stab at it. CheersLinda

[amyntoros]

("Perhaps he wanted his friend to succeed him and choose and that man died necessitating a change in plans..." ) By the time Alexander promoted Hephaistion to chiliarch, I suspect his intent was to make him ruler of Persia while he conquered the west. I really doubt that he ever envisaged Hephaistion as king of the Macedonians and I don't think there's a cat in hell's chance that they would have accepted him anyway. Although Alexander constantly overestimated his Macedonians, especially his close friends, even he would surely have known that. However, had Hephaistion been alive when Alexander died, I'm convinced that at that point he would have chosen Hephaistion as regent rather than Perdiccas, but does anyone doubt that the rest of the Companions would still have ended up battling each other for the various kingdoms? ("...and perhaps in fact, there were very good reasons why he waited to have offspring") I'm sure that Alexander thought they were good reasons, and we've had plenty of previous discussions here about why he didn't marry even before he left Macedonia. But whatever the reasons, they still reflect a lack of concern for who was to follow him.
("and perhaps he wished that his first would be Persian and Statiera was too young to marry") I think we'd be presuming too much, even of Alexander, if we said he had plans to marry a Persian princess before he left Macedonia! I do suspect that after the battle of Issus he had his plans for Persia pretty well formulated, and that marrying Stateira figured prominently in those plans. However, we don't know that Stateira was too young to marry at that time. Curtius 3.11.25 says they were two grown-up but unmarried daughters when they were captured. At 3.12.21 he again calls them the unmarried princesses who were extremely beautiful; and at 4.10.21 he calls them the grown-up daughters. Plutarch (Alexander 21) calls them the unmarried daughters of Darius. Athenaeus 13.603b-d says that when Alexander had captured the daughters and the wife of Darius, he kept his hands off *them* - an unlikely comment if they were still children. Justin at 11.12 is the only one who calls them "little daughters" although these are the same girls who Darius had offered in marriage to Alexander. ("and the kingdom was not settled....") I think that this is a very good point - the reason why he didn't marry Darius' daughters (or any other woman) earlier. (Continued...)

[amyntoros]

Alexander had a king to defeat and then a death to avenge; battles to fight, people to conquer, exotic lands to see and make his own; the achievements of heroes and gods to excel beyond; and eventually a vast kingdom to administrate. Although - and I think this is very relevant - by the time he left Persepolis he had had plenty of time to marry and sire a child. He spent months and months in various places and he didn't *have* to send the girls to Susa. He had probably already formulated plans for the huge wedding at Susa - how do you pull something like that out of a hat at the last minute? - but this shows that ceremony, politics, and appearance were more important to him than progeny.("How are you sure it was obvious Alexander wasn't concerned about the succession?") I think "neglectful" is probably the word I should have used originally. He was young, brave, and he thought he was invincible - and in battle he was. There were more immediate and important things to do and he decided that marriage and legitimate heirs could wait. And by that neglect and due to the circumstances that followed, his lineage ended.Best regards,Amyntoros

[amyntoros]

There's nothing wrong with changing your mind - and I promise I'm not saying that because of this thread! It just means that you are open-minded. (You might even find that your opinions here swing back again in the other direction! ) Before my first response, I was convinced that the reference in the Metz Epitome was worthless and a manufactured event. By the time I had finished looking at it from a different angle I found I had made a one-eighty degree turn. I havenGÇÖt *proved* that it is true, but I am now able to admit the possibility rather than denying it out of hand. Another example is the always provocative death of Darius' wife. I used to have very strong convictions about that until I put together all the ancient excerpts in that Sexuality file. Now I have no idea what to think any more. :-)That would be wonderful if you can access a database on infant mortality amongst the ancients - or even one on general mortality rates where estimated figures for infant deaths should be included. ATBAmyntoros

[abm]

"I really hate drawing modern parallels, but without the medical knowledge we have today, my mother, my sister, my sister-in-law and myself would all have died in childbirth, and even if they survived the birth, my brother, my son, and two nieces would have died as infants, and my sister as a young child."you shouldn't hate modern parallells; being careful with them is enough, since this only clearly is very valid.Child mortality was very high and thus I cannot imagine that Philip's wives didn't bear more than two sons, since Philip couldn't be sure these two would survive.ancient demography has been studied mostly for Roman Egypt: Walter Scheidel, Death on the Nile: disease and the demography of Roman Egypt, Leiden 2001; Roger S. Bagnall & Bruce W. Frier, The demography of Roman Egypt, Cambridge 1994.regards,abm

[xxx]

One out of three was the mortality rate for women in childbirth as I recall. Infant mortality would depend on whether one wished to keep offspring. You could never get a firm handle on that in the Ancient Greek world because infants were often exposed if they had defects, or indeed if they were the wrong sex and that meant female in their time. There would not be a safe reliable number.

[xxx]

Reality check here - it would not have mattered if Alexander had sired progeny before his death. None would have been old enough to have held the empire. The ultimate outcome would have been more dead heirs, nothing else. And he did provide an heir and a Regent. What I think it is fair to say, is that he gave his friends too much power and while he could control them, when he was gone, they were unable to control themselves. I'm afraid the death of his line rests with the Diadochi.

[marcus]

Leaping in a bit late, here, but this has suddenly piqued my interest.The problem with infant mortality rates is that, for whatever reason, we can't really expect to have any data that's of any use. And this is for the same reason that I don't think it at all odd that the major sources don't make anything of the miscarried (or whatever) child in 326 - at the risk of sounding rather blase about it: the child didn't live, so that's the end of the matter. What purpose would it have served Ptolemy, Aristobulus, etc. etc. etc., and consequently Arrian, QC, etc. etc. to go on about a child that died, didn't have a chance to do anything, etc. etc.Of course, one does rather ask the question of why the Metz Epitome, therefore, *does* mention it, and conclude that one of the earlier sources must have been interested enough for the epitomist to pick it up ... but I do think it's one of those exceptions that goes a long way to proving the rule.Originally I believed the Epitome quote was fabrication, and I was convinced after a while of thinking about it (convinced that it was as likely as not, that is).ATBMarcus

[amyntoros]

Excuse me, but I'm not writing from within the Twilight Zone! If Alexander had married a Macedonian woman before he left for Asia and sired a son, leaving him in the care of Olympias and Antipater, you cannot say *without a doubt* that that child, fast approaching adulthood, would not have survived long enough to take the throne. Nothing is written in stone. This would be a completely different scenario with so many variables. Any "what if" situation has different possibilities, some more likely than others.But fantasy recreations apart, the death of his line rests with Alexander. Let him take the responsibility for an unsatisfactory situation, for once! Yes, he gave his friends too much power, but who was responsible for that, if not Alexander? AND his only legitimate heir wasn't even born! This situation existed because of Alexander, no one else. It meant the Successors had years and years to fight their battles and make themselves kings. By then they weren't going to give up their newfound even greater powers and Alexander's offspring were doomed. Either way you look at it, Alexander created that situation.