A Question Concerning ATG's End...

[amyntoros]

IGÇÖm beginning to wonder exactly what it is that we are disagreeing about here. For a start, the majority are in agreement that the conversation between Alexander and Roxane is probably fictional. As such, AgesilaosGÇÖ comment makes much sense in that it is likely to be a propaganda aim to present Roxane as a devoted wife and Alexander as desiring immortality. But without the conversation thereGÇÖs little reason for the rest of the story, IMO. The histories all make reference to Alexander taking multiple baths in the river, and this one (sans conversation) differs only in that Alexander was alone, crawled to the river, and then along came Roxane. I tend to doubt her presence GÇô IGÇÖve already written about that GÇô but I admit it is of little importance one way or another if we acknowledge that the conversation did not take place. Therefore I see no reason (for me) to continue arguing with Andrew about there being an underlying truth to the rest of the story. IGÇÖm just not sure if the tale would have been worth the telling without the conversation. Surely the whole point of the story is the presumably fictional exchange between Alexander and Roxane?

One last comment to those who do believe in the tale to its fullest extent: The story says that they were alone and that Alexander charged Roxane never to tell anyone what took place. So who recorded this event? Are we to assume that Roxane betrayed the last confidence she ever had with her husband? Or are we to suppose that there was someone observing silently who ran off to tell his version to whoever would listen? Hmm, IGÇÖm afraid I wouldnGÇÖt be convinced by either scenario.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

I tend to believe the conversation is fictional, because Alexander was probably delirious, if he was crawling around on all fours in the dead of night. It could just about be a rationalised version of something Alexander said in the grip of his delirium. To play devil's advocate, if Heckel is right that Holkias wrote the Liber de Morte in Macedon in 317BC, then Roxane was there when the document was composed, so she might indeed be the source for the incident. The incident itself is not likely to be fictional, because there is too much truth in the rest of the Liber de Morte and because there were too many people around in 317BC who would have known whether anything like this had actually occurred. The Liber de Morte is probably the earliest surviving source for Alexander's request that his body be taken to Egypt, for his ring being given to Perdiccas, for the soldiers filing past, for Alexander's voicelessness as his disease progressed, for the preservation of Alexander's body in spices, for Medius' party, for the first settlement of the succession and the division of the satrapies, for the antagonism between Antipater and Olympias, for Cassander's visit to Babylon...Its distortions are relatively subtle: it's probably true that Iollas handed Alexander his cup at Medius' party, but untrue that it contained poison.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Coral]

One last comment to those who do believe in the tale to its fullest extent: The story says that they were alone and that Alexander charged Roxane never to tell anyone what took place. So who recorded this event? Are we to assume that Roxane betrayed the last confidence she ever had with her husband?

..... To play devil's advocate, if Heckel is right that Holkias wrote the Liber de Morte in Macedon in 317BC, then Roxane was there when the document was composed, so she might indeed be the source for the incident.

Since this "incident" primarily shows Roxane in a highly favorable light (dutiful wife and mother-to-be of heir) and since apparently Alexander ordered her never to tell anyone of the incident, is it possible that she cooked this up herself and "revealed" it? Since no was meant to know, no one could verify whether it took place or not. In his high-fever induced delirium, Alexander may have created a bit of an incident one midnight by insisting he wanted to bathe in the river rather than in the cleaner, safer bathing pools. If indeed Holkias was the author and his source for this story is Roxane herself, she could have taken this small incident, embroidered it and invented her role in it to strengthen her position as ATG's "most devoted" wife and mother of the boy King. (Wouldn't people have still remembered Statira's murder at that time? Roxane may have felt in need of some propaganda.)

[dean]

Hello,

Just looking on the pothos minor characters section and see that there is no mention of Roxanne or " little star" as I think her name means in English.

I then looked on the main characters and neither was she there. I suppose that we know precious little about this girl.

I think that one interesting fact overlooked on many occasions is that Alexander and Roxanne spoke different languages- although, if they met in 327 then it is probable that Roxanne had a grasp of the workings of Greek- at least to understand what was being said, if not to speak it herself by the time Alexander died some 4 years later.
Speculatively, Roxanne would not have been accepted so easily. Macedonia now was never going to have a "legitimate" heir as Attalus put it. The heir would be Macedonian/Persian so maybe she was looking as Coral said, to improve her image using this "little story". As previously mentioned, who is the one informing us of the event? Who is the fly on the wall? Or have we here another Story like the one about Thalestris?

By the way, Amyntoros, I was just reading the last few pages of Green's book- and noticed that coincidentally he also mentions Milns theory about Strychnine poisoning. Green says that Aristotle's friend Theophrastus had at that time described its uses and dosages. Theophrastus apparently asserted that "the best way to disguise its bitter taste was to mix it with unmixed wine."

Food for thought but I still think that it is a long shot....

Best regards,
Dean

[Taphoi]

I agree with other people's comments that Alexander is unlikely ever to have been unattended during his illness, which would make it difficult for Roxane completely to fabricate the incident. On the other hand, embroidery to cast her(self) in a good light is entirely feasible.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[marcus]

Just looking on the pothos minor characters section and see that there is no mention of Roxanne or " little star" as I think her name means in English.

I then looked on the main characters and neither was she there. I suppose that we know precious little about this girl.

You're right, Dean, Roxane isn't in the major or minor characters yet.

It's all a question of time, and unfortunately Roxane has so far lost out. I haven't even done a proper section on her for the WCD (what's there is very slight). I promise I'll do a biog of her for Pothos asap (although it might still be a while); unless someone else wants to get there first, of course.

In the meantime, have a read of Jona Lendering's Livius article which, again, is not hugely detailed, but does at least provide some info. As you say, we don't really know that much about her - although these two articles are slight, they do basically contain the sum total of our knowledge of Roxane.

ATB

[Coral]

I suppose that we know precious little about this girl.

I think that one interesting fact overlooked on many occasions is that Alexander and Roxanne spoke different languages- although, if they met in 327 then it is probable that Roxanne had a grasp of the workings of Greek- at least to understand what was being said, if not to speak it herself by the time Alexander died some 4 years later.

It IS quite remarkable how little one hears of Roxane before Alexander died. Considering that she spent quite a few years (327 to 324BC) as the only legitimate wife of the most powerful King of that world, it is surprising. A brief mention of the death of her infant in India is about all, isn't it? She really shot to prominence because Alexander died and she was fortunate to have his SON soon thereafter. If Alexander had lived another ten years, she may have been of the same importance as one of Philip's Illyrian/Thracian wives. It is also surprising that in Alexander's last months, there was no mention of her pregnancy, surely an eagerly-awaited affair? No mention of Alexander thanking the gods, or holding thanksgiving feasts, etc. Or was this not a done thing in those times? Or perhaps politically not correct given that he had recently married two Royal Persian princesses?

O/T question for anyone who might know: is it known whether Alexander ever saw his other son, Herakles? When Barsine's daughter was getting married at Susa, wouldn't Barsine have been present with Herakles?

[amyntoros]

It is also surprising that in Alexander's last months, there was no mention of her pregnancy, surely an eagerly-awaited affair? No mention of Alexander thanking the gods, or holding thanksgiving feasts, etc.

I have just enough time for a quickie answer on this one while taking a short break between errands. There is a good reason why there were no thanksgiving feasts, ceremonies, thanking of the gods, etc. The mortality rate for both mother and child was higher in antiquity, and the potential dangers of childbirth meant that one didnGÇÖt dare risk any kind of celebration until after the birth. I believe a newborn wasnGÇÖt even named until several days later, probably because they wanted to be sure it was going to live (and perhaps explaining why thereGÇÖs no record of a name for the son of Alexander that died in India).

Best regards,

[Paralus]

I favour Bosworth's arguments for a Ptolemaic pamphlet rather than a Polyperchid one, accepting Heckel's arguments against the Perdikkan date suggested by some German whose name escapes me.

Adolf Ausfeld is the person you may be thinking of Agesilaos. And, I agree: the Bosworth argument has considrable appeal if not force. His reasoning and lucid analysis of the facts makes the date of 309/08 a near perfect fit.

"Half of writing history is hiding the truth" GÇô Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity. How true.

It is probable that the erstwhile hugely unknown (well, at least entirely unremarkable) Holkias wrote the original Liber de Morte, ensuring a place for himself in history, but wrote it under the propagandising eye of the aggrandising Ptolemy, whose star was firmly in the ascendency at the time. The direct purpose of the document would seem to be the erosion of the position of both the Antigonids and the house of Antipater. Indeed Antipater takes it fairly "flush in the face". The Heckel argument is that this is to support the position of Polyperchon (in 317). That seems GÇô as Bosworth points out GÇô a strange way to achieve it. Essentially the document strips Antipater of any right to Macedon and hence, makes his appointment of Polyperchon irrelevant.

Bosworth treats the excurses to the Euphrates as a later addition and not part of the original document. This may well be true. Either way, I too find it difficult to conceive of the king taking himself - alone - off on all fours like some Macedonian hippo looking for the nearest water hole.

As has been pointed out by posters above, the document is replete with historically correct ingredients: most notably the names. Any piece of propagandising fiction must be rooted in some fact GÇô especially when it involves its intended audience in the story. How much of those original facts GÇô most likely drafted under the eye of the "liberator of the Greeks", Ptolemy GÇô survive in the textually corrupted versions we now have is hard to judge.

[marcus]

Any piece of propagandising fiction must be rooted in some fact GÇô especially when it involves its intended audience in the story. How much of those original facts GÇô most likely drafted under the eye of the "liberator of the Greeks", Ptolemy GÇô survive in the textually corrupted versions we now have is hard to judge.

I'm probably asking a daft question, but to be honest I can't be bothered to go check what it actually says in the Liber de Morte, the Romance, and Arrian, etc. (it's about 30 degrees here and I'm actually engaged in more important things - yes, more important ... hard to credit, but there you go ...); anyway, if there was not factual basis to the story (eg. Alexander taking himself like a Macedonian hippo to the watering hole), then what reason would there be to make the whole episode up - late addition or not? To my mind there was no need for any 'argument' about Alexander's divinity, as that was already sorted. So I don't really see why they would have inserted a wholly fictitious event.

ATB

[dean]

Hello,

Marcus your comment about it being 30 degrees made me think about the temp in Babylon in the month of June and a quick look on the web tells me we are looking at around 45 degrees.

Here in the Canaries the temp. seldom exceeds 35 in summer and we are all flocking to the beaches looking for relief. When there are warm winds from the Sahara the temp can get up to the high forties and then it is crazy and a/c is essential or you have a very bad day. I am trying to imagine Alexander in Babylon with a high temperature and 45 degress outside his window. Poor soul!!!! The high temperatures are unbelievably unpleasant and more than enough reason to spend half your day in the pool or Euphrates (whichever is nearer)

Best regards,
Dean

[marcus]

Marcus your comment about it being 30 degrees made me think about the temp in Babylon in the month of June and a quick look on the web tells me we are looking at around 45 degrees.

Here in the Canaries the temp. seldom exceeds 35 in summer and we are all flocking to the beaches looking for relief. When there are warm winds from the Sahara the temp can get up to the high forties and then it is crazy and a/c is essential or you have a very bad day. I am trying to imagine Alexander in Babylon with a high temperature and 45 degress outside his window. Poor soul!!!! The high temperatures are unbelievably unpleasant and more than enough reason to spend half your day in the pool or Euphrates (whichever is nearer)

Too right! A few years ago I was on Rhodes, at Lindos (where Alexander made a dedication after Gaugamela - to Athena Lindia; and where Harpalos made an offering, too, if I recall correctly). Now, Lindos is a sun-trap at the best of times, being on the Egyptian side of the island; and as all the houses are painted a brilliant white, it naturally reflects more heat onto the lobsters on the beach. That particular year there was a heatwave, and temperatures got up to over 40 in the shade. Even the locals were suffering acutely. I and my friends found that we couldn't actually face going onto the beach until around 5.30pm, when it was just starting to cool down ... and even then it was pretty hairy.

Much as I like hot weather, I don't really fancy going through that again. (It was a near thing at Abu Simbel, in mid-April, when it was around 33 degrees by 8.30am ... no wonder we got there at 6am!).

ATB

[agesilaos]

I confess I too thought Polyainos' source was Hieronymos but on checking the Greek he uses the term 'hopllite' for the deserting infantry and I don't think Hieronymos, as preserved in Diodoros ever does when referring to the infantry ofthe phalanx. So perhaps the story comes from a Greek historian of the times, or maybe Polyainos is substituting a term he understands.

[cynisca]

Khaire Dean and Marcus,

Marcus your comment about it being 30 degrees made me think about the temp in Babylon in the month of June and a quick look on the web tells me we are looking at around 45 degrees.

Here in the Canaries the temp. seldom exceeds 35 in summer and we are all flocking to the beaches looking for relief. When there are warm winds from the Sahara the temp can get up to the high forties and then it is crazy and a/c is essential or you have a very bad day. I am trying to imagine Alexander in Babylon with a high temperature and 45 degress outside his window. Poor soul!!!! The high temperatures are unbelievably unpleasant and more than enough reason to spend half your day in the pool or Euphrates (whichever is nearer)

Too right! A few years ago I was on Rhodes, at Lindos (where Alexander made a dedication after Gaugamela - to Athena Lindia; and where Harpalos made an offering, too, if I recall correctly). Now, Lindos is a sun-trap at the best of times, being on the Egyptian side of the island; and as all the houses are painted a brilliant white, it naturally reflects more heat onto the lobsters on the beach. That particular year there was a heatwave, and temperatures got up to over 40 in the shade. Even the locals were suffering acutely. I and my friends found that we couldn't actually face going onto the beach until around 5.30pm, when it was just starting to cool down ... and even then it was pretty hairy.

Much as I like hot weather, I don't really fancy going through that again. (It was a near thing at Abu Simbel, in mid-April, when it was around 33 degrees by 8.30am ... no wonder we got there at 6am!).

ATB

Bearing in mind that Alexander grew up in a region that was maybe a little warmer than some of us are used to and that the climate has changed considerably in the last two thousand years...I think somebody mentioned that...?
He had been through Asia and down to Egypt as well as India, so would have been aclimatised to a certain extent, although I agree that the fever must have been agony.
Surely the interior of the palace would have been cool compared with outside though?
I wonder if it was something else that was drawing him towards the river, maybe the fresh air and greenery....? Something that made him think of home...or a place he felt closer to his own Gods and Goddesses and ancestors..?
regards
Cynisca