Bagoas ( Some clarification needed )

[Lutka]

Hi everyone,
I was reading the other day some footnotes on a new edition of Curzius Rufus and something the translator said on Bagoas strucked me,to say the least.
She says that Bagoas poisoned Artaserse III (336 ) and his son(338) to help Darius get on the throne( and I'm ok with that ) but then he says he was obliged to drink the poison to by Darius,so that Darius could get rid of him...and that's were I get seriously confused...does the author mean that Bagoas took the poison but did NOT die because of it? How it is possible ? Sorry if I sound incredibly ignorant,I'm not as expert as you guys are
Silvia

[Callisto]

hello,

Artaxerxes III Ochos was poisoned, as you already said, by Bagoas. Later Bagoas put a son of Artaxerxes III, called Arses, on the throne but he also put him out of the way soon. His next choice was another man of the royal line who adopted the name Darius Codomanus. Neither Darius fully answered the expectations of Bagoas, and Bagoas attempted to murder him with poison. For Bagoas bad luck, the plot was discovered and Darius forced Bagoas to drink his own poison himself. I think the age, Bagoas was put to death, was 356 B.C.

Regards.

[Lutka]

Thanks Callisto for your explanation, I had never heard before what had been the end of Bagos,and this was helpful, I wonder how I never came across it before in other readings...

[sikander]

Greetings,

Keep in mind this is a different Bagoas than the one presented as Alexander's lover.

Regards,
Sikander

[rjones2818]

Hi all,

One of the main points in Ranajit Pal's Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander is that Bagoas the Eunuch (as opposed to Bagoas the boy toy ) was that he survived and attached himself to Alexander as he headed toward India. It's a very fascinating view, IMHO.

Copies of the book are very hard to come by, but you might be able to get one if you search at Amazon.com (currently there's one available for $99.99).

Rex

[sikander]

Greetings Rex,

"One of the main points in Ranajit Pal's Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander is that Bagoas the Eunuch (as opposed to Bagoas the boy toy Twisted Evil ) was that he survived and attached himself to Alexander as he headed toward India. It's a very fascinating view, IMHO."

Yes, I am aware of this work. One of the fascinating things about Alexander studies is the many possibilities and speculations that are still open. However, we must still bear in mind chronology, Alexander's own temperament and the thoroughness of the Persian court (smile). Interesting theory, though....

Regards,
Sikander

[amyntoros]

I wish that Dr. Pal was still on Pothos to discuss this with us. Unfortunately, I donGÇÖt have a copy of his book, but I recall his practice (in his posts and websites) of GÇ£linkingGÇ¥ names thus: Sandragupta was really Arybbas who was also known as Artibazus whose real name was Ariobarzanes. (I made up this sentence, btw, just to illustrate my point.) Not being overly familiar with many of the names he uses, I usually find myself asking GÇ£Who are these people anyway?GÇ¥ followed by the other obvious question: GÇ£How could he know all this?GÇ¥ I have a good deal of respect for Dr. Pal, but I do wish he realized how confusing some of his analysis and explanations can be.

I just relocated a web page of Dr. PalGÇÖs in which he discusses his Bagoas theory and I, umm, have difficulty in accepting that a later dramatization can be used to prove or disprove known history. Yes, I know that it would be greatly to our advantage to have sources other than the Greek, but I would prefer that they not be fictional portrayals. Here, Dr Pal goes backwards and forwards between the play and history, linking characters, establishing further connections of his own, and then proffering them as proof of his version of history. See here his accounting of the men behind the mutiny in India.

However, here the chief orchestrator must have been Bagoas who, together with Sasigupta, conspired with Harpalus, Eumenes, Perdikkas, Seleucus, Apollophanes, Cleander, Philip and others.

It is an interesting and fascinating theory, as you both have said, but I find it ultimately unsatisfying. You own Dr. PalGÇÖs book, Rex. Do you find the longer elaboration to be more convincing?

Best regards,

Amyntoros

Am editing this a little while after posting. I just noticed that this is my one thousandth post! I was thinking of giving myself a prize until I became aware that Marcus is sneaking up on 3,000 posts! We shall have to have a parade or something when he gets there.

[marcus]

However, here the chief orchestrator must have been Bagoas who, together with Sasigupta, conspired with Harpalus, Eumenes, Perdikkas, Seleucus, Apollophanes, Cleander, Philip and others.

It is an interesting and fascinating theory, as you both have said, but I find it ultimately unsatisfying. You own Dr. PalGÇÖs book, Rex. Do you find the longer elaboration to be more convincing?

Not least because Harpalus wasn't anywhere near the Hyphasis, but either in Ecbatana or even Babylon. How he could have had anything to do with the mutiny seems very far-fetched. I'd need to have a good look into who the heck Apollophanes was, too.

It seems churlish to criticise Dr Pal's theories without checking his earlier posts, and particularly with him not here to defend himself; but I have to admit I have always struggled to take them seriously. If Rex and/or others can elucidate in more detail, actually having access to Dr Pal's work, then please do give us some more detail!

ATB

[rjones2818]

Yes, I do have the book...I'm currently reading it so I'm not able to give you the total low down.

Dr. Pal's writing style is interesting (it has been suggested that English may be a second language), but I've been reading his web pages for a while. He does do a lot of connecting by names by roots and points toward a 'traditional' alignment of Persia and at least the Northwest of India as if it were a single culture. He also suggests a strong Indo-Persian influence on Babylon.

I'm not sure that I'd say everything's convincing, but he works with sources we don't really have translated into English (although I have bought the Murdabakasa, which he links to Bagoas, the generals and Alexander's signet ring).

He does say that there are more Indologists needed to work on the Alexander question, which he sees as having been stunted/misdirected by and Englishman named Jones (no relation as far as I know), hence the title.

BTW: The Gedrosian campaign is said to be Alexander fighting Chandragupta/the Parsii.

So far, it's really interesting.

Rex