Recognition

[jasonxx]

For All Alexanders achievements. I wonder in his own head who or what he was trying to attain Recognition from. The Gods his people or even Philip.

I as this as most people and achievers seem to gain recognition from adoring fans peers or society.Its fair to say Alexander was not aiming for anything from the Greeks or even his own Macedonians.Was his own goals and achievents between himself and the Gods?


He was always refering to and trying to out do the gods and heroes before. Some say that the Alexander relationship with the Gods was his own personal propoganda.But I would call it real. The Ancients were indeed brought up and did believe in the Olympian Gods.would it be fair to say Alexander really did think himself divine and his whole Conquest stuff was a real aim to earn and sit amongst the gods. Or who was he trying to impress.

Kenny

[smittysmitty]

An excellent question Kenny. Perhaps he was trying to discredit the gods?

[aleksandros]

I think that Alexander wanted to be worshiped for centuries like Dionysos, Heracles and Achilles. Concerning the divine thing, the heroes were very influencial persons and always their achievements were credited to the gods who favoured them.
Its a question whether these heroes were acredited divine descendance before or after their labours. We know though that with Alexander this happened after Tyre.
It is not like Alexander wanted to be a God. It is that Alexander wanted to be a hero. And every true hero was a son of a God.
There were temples to Heracles and Dionysos in the times of Alexander. Alexander achieved more from what we know and i am almost sure that if it weren't for Christianity and we were still pagans we would worship Alexander no less than Dionysos or Heracles today. Lets dont forget that he was worshiped as a God for 700 years in Alexandria...

Congratulations Alexander! You made it!

[jasonxx]

Alexanthros Hail

Your comment that Alexander out did Dionysus and Heracles is reall a good thing to say or can be looked at persectively. If we or Alexander measured himself against the Gods or ancient legendary heroes he measuring himself against fantasical heroes. Even Achiles wasnt a real human being with any historical backing. Alexander out did mans invention of super human beinngs.

I would liken it today toa mere moratal in reality out doing superman. Super man comes in the same vein As Achiles Dyonisus and Heracles. So in reflection the character Alexander The Great in person in his day and in his own reality out did the Ancient Greeks Equivelant of Superman. Now aint that something. Alexander out did and excelled all the imaginary feats of all the heroes that went before. So if those befor him were gods then he mast have thought himself equal.

Kenny

[marcus]

I would liken it today toa mere moratal in reality out doing superman. Super man comes in the same vein As Achiles Dyonisus and Heracles. So in reflection the character Alexander The Great in person in his day and in his own reality out did the Ancient Greeks Equivelant of Superman. Now aint that something. Alexander out did and excelled all the imaginary feats of all the heroes that went before. So if those befor him were gods then he mast have thought himself equal.

Only to a certain extent, though, Kenny. To equate Heracles with Superman is probably very appropriate, in view of Heracles' strength. But Alexander never claimed to outdo those heroes in terms of all their deeds - Heracles did, after all, complete twelve labours that Alexander never claimed to be able to match. The only *deed* where he 'outdid' Heracles was the taking of Aornus; everything else was all about having travelled further than the particular hero - which might have included subduing a people, but that's because he was there to be able to do it.

ATB

[jasonxx]

Marcus Hail

Sorry to differ. Superman and Heracles are exact in the manner they are both mythological fiction. Heracles 12 so called acheivements. First of all there was no Heracles and there for no 12 Achievements. So how can any mortal man measure aginst such a guide line.

Its like saying Superman had so many achievement and one was to fly. No mere mortal can equal flying. All the Heroes acheivements are basic boundaries set by the human mind at that time. Alexander as a human could only out do or over achieve in something that was humanly possible. I would add were Alexander to out do Heracles or the heroes in all the scopes then people and even intelects today would even after wonder if Alexander was actually a god in the real sense of the word.

Its ok saying Heracles couldnt take Pir Sar or the Sogdian Rock were in reality Heracles never even went there. Its all Romantasised Fantasy and if we were to put credability in myhth then we must also put credibility in the crazy fantasies arising from Alexander. The one comes to mind is him going to the bottom of the sea in a Submarine. If we measire like for like then Alexander exelled. Heracles never went to the ocean floor. Niether did Alexander but its all relative.

Kenny

[jasonxx]

Marcus there are many fantasical stories. Alexander doing a Jesus and calming a Storm. Alexander having a mythical Child with an Amazon queen . The Snakes to Siwah.

I guess theres many more that has turned a lot of Alexander into Ancient Greek myth Im sure you know more.

Kenny

[amyntoros]

Sorry to differ. Superman and Heracles are exact in the manner they are both mythological fiction. Heracles 12 so called acheivements. First of all there was no Heracles and there for no 12 Achievements. So how can any mortal man measure aginst such a guide line ... Its like saying Superman had so many achievement and one was to fly. No mere mortal can equal flying. All the Heroes acheivements are basic boundaries set by the human mind at that time. Alexander as a human could only out do or over achieve in something that was humanly possible ... Its all Romantasised Fantasy and if we were to put credability in myhth then we must also put credibility in the crazy fantasies arising from Alexander. The one comes to mind is him going to the bottom of the sea in a Submarine. If we measire like for like then Alexander exelled. Heracles never went to the ocean floor. Niether did Alexander but its all relative.

It may be all Romanticized Fantasy to people today, Kenny, but it certainly wasn’t to the ancient Greeks - what we think of as myth was history and fact to them. To make a modern day comparison, what you’re saying would be like calling the New Testament a romanticized fantasy; a myth with no credibility. Non-Christians and atheists may see it that way, but true believers certainly do not. In Alexander’s time, almost everyone was a believer. The gods (and Homer) were real to them, as were the heroes, and it’s necessary to understand and accept this to try and understand Alexander.

I’ve never been sure whether the tales of Alexander’s conception were in existence when he was a child or whether they came to prominence later when he was an adult, so I won’t argue that Alexander always believed he was the son of a god. What is certain (IMO), however, is that he knew if he excelled in everything – great feats of daring, victories against all odds, achievements beyond all others (such as the taking of Aronos and the conquest of India) – then he could achieve the status of a hero and would be guaranteed to sit alongside the gods in Olympus. Historically this had happened to others who had been proclaimed heroes after their deaths by the population; the biggest difference with Alexander is that people (over the objections of Callisthenes) were saying it while Alexander was still alive! Today we may view it as the mythologizing of Alexander, but he surely believed it to be true as is evidenced by his urgent need to make the dead Hephaistion a god or hero so that they could be together in the afterlife. Alexander’s convictions would have been as strong as those of a Christians today who believe that they will go to heaven after they die.

As for what you call the crazy fantasies; well, the talking trees and the traveling to the bottom of the ocean or in a basket to heaven were not tales told when Alexander was still alive. I’m not a hundred percent sure (Taphoi will know) but I believe these embellishments to the Romance may not have occurred until the Christian era. Why the story of Alexander was co-opted in some small manner into Christianity I’m not quite sure and it isn’t an area of study that especially appeals to me, but it’s interesting to note that there is a relief on the north wall of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice that shows Alexander ascending to heaven in a basket drawn by griffons!

I guess my point in this rambling post is that we KNOW the tales of Superman to be fiction, but Alexander wasn’t trying to outdo any fictional character – in his time his heroes were real. And I agree with Marcus that Alexander wasn’t trying to outdo them, but was trying to compete with them on a level that would bring him to the same state of being.

Best regards,

[jasonxx]

myntros hail

You mentioned something there that is uncanny and may be of Interest to Tapoi. The plot thickrns I refer to the images you mention on St Marks Basilica depicting Alexander ascending to heaven. If thats true and a real definition. It put a little more coal or fuel to the Concept that St Marks corpse is really Alexander.

As Andrew mentions in his book arguments have been raised that Alexanders body may have been destroyed as a Pagan Image by the Zealot Christians of that time. If thats the case and the Christians did see Alexander as pagan. Then why does a Christian Monument ie St Marks bady have depictions of Alexander ascending to Heaven?

I didnt know that and cant really clarify or make out the significance of these things but to me its very uncanny.You also say that a lot of Alexanders mythological Romance is down to christian invention. It makes me wonder that the Medievil Christians were no so detatched from Alexander as may be first thought. If Christians refer there heritage back even to the Old Testament. Daniel refers to Alexander as some prophet.

Daniel 11 has Alexander as a heroic King with strength more than any other king.Daniel is full of Alexander, Rams horn even the Reference to the King of Egypt been the greatest of his generals is Ptolemy. So indeed we have Alexander in the Old Testament. Not as a devil Satan etc but a hero. Can we assume that Christianity it solely Jesus New Testament. No Jesus god and father is the God of Abraham Moses Solomon David etc. Bearing this in mind is it that easy to accept that Christians would destroy Alexanders boby the same Alexander writen about by Daniel. Maybe Moses Solomon etc were more prevelent. BUt ALEXANDER is in the same context. Would christians risk maybe gods wrath by destroying Alexander?

I must say I dont think so and the more stuff that shows up particullaly what you said Amyntoros more and more gives me reason to believe Alexander is where ST mark is supposed to be,

Kenny

[Taphoi]

As for what you call the crazy fantasies; well, the talking trees and the traveling to the bottom of the ocean or in a basket to heaven were not tales told when Alexander was still alive. I’m not a hundred percent sure (Taphoi will know) but I believe these embellishments to the Romance may not have occurred until the Christian era. Why the story of Alexander was co-opted in some small manner into Christianity I’m not quite sure and it isn’t an area of study that especially appeals to me, but it’s interesting to note that there is a relief on the north wall of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice that shows Alexander ascending to heaven in a basket drawn by griffons!

The prophecy of the talking trees that Alexander would die in Babylon seems to be an original feature of the Romance - it's in the oldest versions. Alexander's ascent into the sky in a chariot drawn by griffins and his ensuing descent into the sea in a glass diving bell are in manuscripts (e.g. recension J-superscript-1) of the Historia de Preliis or History of (Alexander's) Battles. This is the title usually given to the version of the Alexander Romance which was translated from a Greek manuscript found in Constantinople by Leo the Archpriest between AD951 and AD969. It became the main source of versions of the Romance which circulated in medieval Europe. More than 100 manuscripts are extant. The Historia de Preliis has Christianising elements, due to incorporations of material from Josephus, Jerome and others by an early unknown redactor of Leo's version. It was so popular in medieval times that the depiction of the griffin chariot in St Mark's is likely to have occurred quite independently of my association of the Basilica with Alexander. It is probably just a coincidence.

Hope this is helpful.

Andrew

[marcus]

Sorry to differ. Superman and Heracles are exact in the manner they are both mythological fiction. Heracles 12 so called acheivements. First of all there was no Heracles and there for no 12 Achievements. So how can any mortal man measure aginst such a guide line.

Hi Kenny,

You're more than welcome to disagree any time, mate. However, I wasn't disagreeing with what you were saying in principle - particularly as far as the Superman/Heracles fiction point. However, what I was referring to was when you said:

Alexander out did and excelled all the imaginary feats of all the heroes that went before.

which is not strictly true. That's all.

One could argue about the fact that Heracles was not viewed as "fictional" in the same way that Superman is - but that's getting away from the very valid point that you were making.

ATB

[aleksandros]

jasonxx i think you are making a terrible mistake!

Dionysos, Heracles and Achilles were not imaginary demi-God like creatures to Greeks nor to Alexander himself! The Greeks believed they were men that existed. Alexander visited the tomb of Achilles and took his weapons. Ancient Greece was a place where orthologism prevailed. Even more than today. They didn't believe in superman-like stories!

And yes Alexander believed he outdid the heroes he also thought he descented from. He fought against the whole world at a time that even to travel to India on foot was a major achievement. There was never a man with more power or more money analogically.

Concerning Pir-Sar, Aristotle himself gave instructions about the place where Heracles had failed. It wasn't any tales Alexander heard or invented himself...

Having these in mind reread my previous post to understand my approach.

[jasonxx]

Alexandthros Hail

Ok Alexander at his time thought these heroes were real as it was the norm and imagined himself in direct competition. Down to the times and ignorance a Romantic Ignorance.

Marcus said Alexander didnt outdo 12 Haraclean deeds. I admit in his own head and in his time maybe not. But in reality and the learning of knowledge we know he did. As I said there was no Heracles nor an Achiles made invincible by been dipped in the river Stix.

The Characters are basic mythological folk law akin to King Arthur and Robiin Hood. Although Heracles a bit tougher and stronger wellhe had to be been the son af a god.

The main difference without Alexander realising was he was a mere mortal man. A genius outdoing perfection of the gods without even realising.Is why I say Alexander the Great was as near as any man ever came to been a god without been a god that has ever lived.

Kenny

[aleksandros]

ok jasonxx i understand your point.

But i think your are judjing things the way we see them today. You know that when Alexander reached India a lot of his enemies were convinced he was immortal, he couldn't be killed, because he was been in so many battles in the front line and always recovered from his wounds. That is how legends are born. what i mean... imagine Heracles or Achilles doing the same shit Alexander did. Some people might say that they are immortal cause they are too good to be true. So the legend will rise. Stories will spread. These stories shouldn't make those heroes imaginary. And in ancient Greece they weren't imaginary.

The difference of Alexander was that he lived centuries later in a more advanced world with the literature flourishing and his life was passed through times in modern and moderate style.

Imagine a guy traveling through time to 4000 BC and after he lives there a little, with the knowledge of his life in 2050 he discovers antigravity. This guy would pass into the legends of the tribes and his legend might survive till 2050 as 'the man who flew' or 'the man with wings'. If he did the antigravity breakthrough in 2050 he will be remembered as a great scientist etc...

Jasonxx i deeply support that this is the source of the different impresion we have about Alexander and the legendary heroes of ancient Greece.

In fact Alexander was so great that even in the advanced point the humanity was at the 4th century BC, legends were born about a two horned beast etc.

I think that if Alexander lived and did such feats at the times of epic Greece, the legends about him would be much more extreme than a bloom in the lake Styx. And you jasonxx would laugh your lungs out if in a respective forum i was trying to persuade you that Alexander was a real man! lol

At some point you are right. In Alexander we can see the man. Thats true and it is amazing how lucky we are he lived in the 4th century and we have the opportunity to look into the life of a man who was larger than life.

[smittysmitty]

I'm with you on this one Kenny. I think Alexander's life experiences and travels well and truly put to rest the notion of mystical beasts and places as described by the ancients.

If there were a lion, boar or dung heap to clean, I'm sure he would have found these obstacles easily tackledas what Heracles may have.

By the Classical period of Greece, the age old myths had well and truly come under the microscope- and an age of reason was being fostered by those of any significance.

It may have even been the underlying reason for the emergence of Ruler Cults during the Hellenistic period?

Stick to your guns. I like your reasoning.

Cheers!