In early summer, 329, Alexander had dealt with Bessus and was marching north towards the Tanais river, when the party of foraging Macedonians were set upon, Arrian says by tribesmen, Curtius says by barbarians. In the retaliatory action, Alexander is wounded in the leg by an arrow, and his leg is broken.
Who were these people, do we know?
The army has passed the Oxus, so presumably they're in Sogdia. Yet both Arrian and Curtius, when they want to refer to Sogdians, use that name - and the same for Bactrians and Scythians, too. Yet here is a force comprising 20 or 30 thousand, who don't warrant a name?
This intrigues me, and I was wondering if anyone had ever looked into this, and found out any more information.
Fiona
Who broke Alexander's leg?
Moderator: pothos moderators
-
glaukias
Hello,
I don't know if I can be of much help here...
I am (stil) writing my thesis on the medical aspects of Alexander's life. As far as I can find these passage in my text now, it can be found in Quintus Curtius Rufus, 7, 6, 1 – 7, 6, 6 (he just states that the arrow got stuck and doesn't mention a fracture).
They have already passed through the Sogdian desert and come close to the city of Marakanda/Samarkand. To be honest I didn't think too much about the origin of the enemy army and just assumed it would be Sogdians. Do you think it made a diffenrence if they weren't?
Regards,
Glaukias
I don't know if I can be of much help here...
I am (stil) writing my thesis on the medical aspects of Alexander's life. As far as I can find these passage in my text now, it can be found in Quintus Curtius Rufus, 7, 6, 1 – 7, 6, 6 (he just states that the arrow got stuck and doesn't mention a fracture).
They have already passed through the Sogdian desert and come close to the city of Marakanda/Samarkand. To be honest I didn't think too much about the origin of the enemy army and just assumed it would be Sogdians. Do you think it made a diffenrence if they weren't?
Regards,
Glaukias
Hello glaukias, nice to meet you. No, I guess it doesn't make any difference, it was just idle curiosity on my part. They probably were Sogdians, but with the name not being mentioned, I wondered if they might have been some other grouping, perhaps inhabiting higher ground. But there are an awful lot of them, in what seems to be a fairly barren area, it's hard to see the land supporting all of them and all the Sogdians as well, so likely they are really one and the same.
Your thesis sounds most impressive. I guess you'll know all about this broken leg, (if it was broken). It's Arrian that mentions the fracture, 'fibula broken' I think he says. That's the thinner bone in the lower leg, isn't it - the outer one?
What d'you think of the fact that he seems to be crawling through tunnels a few weeks later? Does that mean his leg could not really have been fractured, or is it possible it had already healed?
Fiona
Your thesis sounds most impressive. I guess you'll know all about this broken leg, (if it was broken). It's Arrian that mentions the fracture, 'fibula broken' I think he says. That's the thinner bone in the lower leg, isn't it - the outer one?
What d'you think of the fact that he seems to be crawling through tunnels a few weeks later? Does that mean his leg could not really have been fractured, or is it possible it had already healed?
Fiona
glaukias wrote:Hello,
I don't know if I can be of much help here...
I am (stil) writing my thesis on the medical aspects of Alexander's life. As far as I can find these passage in my text now, it can be found in Quintus Curtius Rufus, 7, 6, 1 – 7, 6, 6 (he just states that the arrow got stuck and doesn't mention a fracture).
They have already passed through the Sogdian desert and come close to the city of Marakanda/Samarkand. To be honest I didn't think too much about the origin of the enemy army and just assumed it would be Sogdians. Do you think it made a diffenrence if they weren't?
Regards,
Glaukias
-
glaukias
Hello (and nice meeting you, too),
as the basis of that thesis is QCR I mainly use his text and just refer to Arrian and the other to further illustrate certain topics. As QCR doesn't really say that the bone was broken, the only think I could think of was a fissure of the bone (which would be ok after a while but still wouldn't make too much sense). So I rather assumed part of the arrow had gotten stuck in the bone withour further damagin the bone structure, the arrow was removed and thus the injury wasn't that harmful, although it is said that due to this he wasn't able to write his horse. Most of what I am concluding is highly speculatory, and my guess is, that this might be part of the topos and heroization of Alexander, like the part where he presents himself in front of the enemy army. In this case the information that can be gathered in the text of QCR is very unclear. To be honest, reading through that text passage in my thesis again it doesn't look "finished" at all yet. If you have any ideas on how to make this passage clearer, I would be very happy to hear them. (And if you know German I could send you that thesis to read through if you want).
Regards,
Glaukias (who I don't think was crucified)
as the basis of that thesis is QCR I mainly use his text and just refer to Arrian and the other to further illustrate certain topics. As QCR doesn't really say that the bone was broken, the only think I could think of was a fissure of the bone (which would be ok after a while but still wouldn't make too much sense). So I rather assumed part of the arrow had gotten stuck in the bone withour further damagin the bone structure, the arrow was removed and thus the injury wasn't that harmful, although it is said that due to this he wasn't able to write his horse. Most of what I am concluding is highly speculatory, and my guess is, that this might be part of the topos and heroization of Alexander, like the part where he presents himself in front of the enemy army. In this case the information that can be gathered in the text of QCR is very unclear. To be honest, reading through that text passage in my thesis again it doesn't look "finished" at all yet. If you have any ideas on how to make this passage clearer, I would be very happy to hear them. (And if you know German I could send you that thesis to read through if you want).
Regards,
Glaukias (who I don't think was crucified)
I know a bit of Geman, but not enough to read a thesis - though thank you for the offer! If you're using Curtius as a basic text then no, you wouldn't have the fracture, I agree. I know how hard it is to cover all the possibilities suggested by other writers. You can end up with really complex sentences, full of qualifications, that are almost unreadable, so good luck with that knotty problem.
What you suggest about the injury sounds most plausible, following Curtius - that the arrow tip penetrated the bone without fracturing the leg. That would explain the crawling-through-tunnels not much later episode, but as you yourself hint, it doesn't quite cover the not being able to ride his horse bit, does it? This - if I remember correctly - was the time when the infantry and cavalry argued about who was to carry him, and they were told to take it in turns, so that sounds like he was unable to ride his horse for at least three days, and probably longer.
That sounds like his leg was splinted to me. I can't think of anything else that would keep Alexander off his horse for at least three days. Even if it had been one of those nasty barbed arrow heads, and removing it had caused considerable damage and pain, it would still be mostly soft tissue injury, and well-bandaged, he'd have been able to bend his knee. And if he could bend his knee, he'd have been on his horse, I think.
Fiona
What you suggest about the injury sounds most plausible, following Curtius - that the arrow tip penetrated the bone without fracturing the leg. That would explain the crawling-through-tunnels not much later episode, but as you yourself hint, it doesn't quite cover the not being able to ride his horse bit, does it? This - if I remember correctly - was the time when the infantry and cavalry argued about who was to carry him, and they were told to take it in turns, so that sounds like he was unable to ride his horse for at least three days, and probably longer.
That sounds like his leg was splinted to me. I can't think of anything else that would keep Alexander off his horse for at least three days. Even if it had been one of those nasty barbed arrow heads, and removing it had caused considerable damage and pain, it would still be mostly soft tissue injury, and well-bandaged, he'd have been able to bend his knee. And if he could bend his knee, he'd have been on his horse, I think.
Fiona
glaukias wrote:Hello (and nice meeting you, too),
as the basis of that thesis is QCR I mainly use his text and just refer to Arrian and the other to further illustrate certain topics. As QCR doesn't really say that the bone was broken, the only think I could think of was a fissure of the bone (which would be ok after a while but still wouldn't make too much sense). So I rather assumed part of the arrow had gotten stuck in the bone withour further damagin the bone structure, the arrow was removed and thus the injury wasn't that harmful, although it is said that due to this he wasn't able to write his horse. Most of what I am concluding is highly speculatory, and my guess is, that this might be part of the topos and heroization of Alexander, like the part where he presents himself in front of the enemy army. In this case the information that can be gathered in the text of QCR is very unclear. To be honest, reading through that text passage in my thesis again it doesn't look "finished" at all yet. If you have any ideas on how to make this passage clearer, I would be very happy to hear them. (And if you know German I could send you that thesis to read through if you want).
Regards,
Glaukias (who I don't think was crucified)
-
glaukias
Hello,
very interesting thought and ideas, indeed, thanks for giving me new ideas to think about.
I think I read somewhere that during that time they didn't have the saddle and all the riding gear (for lack of original term) that is used nowadays. If this is true, I (not being a horse rider) can only imagine that the horse could be controlled mainly by the muscle strength of the leg. Maybe being injured in the lower leg that was a problem?
Regards,
Glaukias
very interesting thought and ideas, indeed, thanks for giving me new ideas to think about.
I think I read somewhere that during that time they didn't have the saddle and all the riding gear (for lack of original term) that is used nowadays. If this is true, I (not being a horse rider) can only imagine that the horse could be controlled mainly by the muscle strength of the leg. Maybe being injured in the lower leg that was a problem?
Regards,
Glaukias
You're absolutely right - that's a good point. It's the stirrups that would make the difference here - they didn't have them - and as you say,without them you control the horse more by the strength of the leg.glaukias wrote:Hello,
very interesting thought and ideas, indeed, thanks for giving me new ideas to think about.
I think I read somewhere that during that time they didn't have the saddle and all the riding gear (for lack of original term) that is used nowadays. If this is true, I (not being a horse rider) can only imagine that the horse could be controlled mainly by the muscle strength of the leg. Maybe being injured in the lower leg that was a problem?
Regards,
Glaukias
So the fact that he couldn't ride is evidence for his leg injury being a bad one, but not for a definite fractured fibula. He wouldn't have to be in splints, not to be able to ride.
Thanks for that!
Fiona