Alexander-¦s tumb

[Ricardo Horta]

I would, please, like to know if Alexander-¦s tumb and body where ever found.If so, where? Babylon?

[agesilaos]

Neither has been found but would be located in Alexandria in Egypt until the coming of the Arabs who may have moved them; but that is a matter for medievilists and I can't help there.

[panos]

Given that the Macedons had a great respect for their Kings it is highly probable that the body was moved to the Necropolis of the Macedon Kings in Vergina. Of course I am only speculating but I couldnt find any source denying this possibility.Panos

[marcus]

Hi Panos,Given that the last recorded visit to Alexander's tomb in Alexandria was by Caracalla (3rd century AD), I think it highly unlikely that it was ever moved from there. By that time there was no Macedonian kingdom as such, so I don't think there would have been any thought of 'salvaging' Alexander's body.All the bestMarcus

[panos]

Hi MarcusI do agree with the sources and I was just doing a speculation. This is what led me to do so:The historical evidence indicate that Alexander was to be burried next to his ancestors. The caravan (by Perdiccas) that was transporting the body to the homeland was hijacked (assaulted??) by a military detachment sent by Ptolemy. No military force would be necessary if the body was to be buried in Alexandria or Memphis ecc.Another clue is that the tradition involved "pyre" of the body and burial of the remnants. It is true that Alexander was great conqueror with many innovating ideas, and his body was a symbol of power to whoever might have it. All his friends and bodygards though were Macedons, keeping zealously the traditions they had in the homeland. Mummyfying a corpse and keeping it to public view - not burying it - was considered by far blasfem and whoever did it (in this case Ptolemy) was not very well seen by the others (in this case the generals). Such behaviour, by itself could be a very strong "casus bely" but there is no evidence of a similar discrepancy. Alexander had proclaimed himself Pharaoh and was accepted by the Egyptians. It is known that Pharaohs were loved as divine sons even before the Persian conquest of Egypt. Furthermore, for the Egyptians the mummification was related to the afterlife and all the royal mummies were placed in a sealed sarconice personus not to be bothered by any "intruders". On the contrary in this case we see a big flow of "tourists" visiting the region "intruding and disturbing the peace of the sleeping King" without causing any objections from the powerful priesthood of Egypt. Panos

[marcus]

Hi Panos,Yes, you are right, that had Perdikkas intended Alexander's body to go to Egypt in the first place, there would have been no need for Ptolemy to 'hijack' it. I think that is an incontrovertable fact.However, whatever the Macedonians (apart from Ptolemy) felt at the time, we *know* that Alexander's body was still in Egypt when Caracalla visited it. By that time not only were Alexander's generals looooong dead, but also their own little empires had crumbled and been subsumed by the Roman Empire. Macedonia was not a kingdom any more, and it had no royal family, least of all one that would have felt any need or burning ambition to repatriate Alexander's body.Quite what happened to the body we don't know, of course; but I cannot see any reason to suggest that it might have been removed to Macedonia, certainly not 500+ years after Alexander's death.All the bestMarcus

[panos]

Hi MarcusEven before the generals were loooooong dead and their kingdoms crumbled to pieces (and Caracala was even born) there is no mention of them disputing about the body. I do not think that they would move it 500+ yrs after his death but they could have done it looooong before.
For example Cassander back in the homeland could very much use such a ceremony since he was fighting against the other regent (Polyperchon) and at the same time was a very good ally of Ptolemy and Antigonus. He was "connected" to the royal family by marriage of Thessaloniki, but it was not enough since Philip Arhideus and his ambitius wife Eurydice, Olympias, Hercules, Roxana and King Alexander IV were still around.
It is true that Cassander played a strong political game in order to become the undisputed King of Macedonia but his coronation he never had any kind of internal problems. There should be some "friends" of the slained and removed rivals objecting to the presence of Cassander!!!!!! I cannot think of another spectacular move he could do

[susan]

PanosYou should look at the sitehttp://www.tdpapazois.grwhere the writer speculates that Alexander's body is at Vergina. This is not what most people believe, but you may find the site interesting, and certainly the man who has made the site will be pleased to hear from you.RegardsSusan

[marcus]

Hi Panos,>>I do not think that they would move it 500+ yrs after his death but they could have done it looooong before.>I do not think that they would move it 500+ yrs after his death but they could have done it looooong before.>I do not think that they would move it 500+ yrs after his death but they could have done it looooong before.I do not think that they would move it 500+ yrs after his death but they could have done it looooong before.I do not think that they would move it 500+ yrs after his death but they could have done it looooong before.

[panos]

Hey Marcus!
About Caracalla: He saw a mummy in a glass sarconice personus. Mummies even with the technology of today is difficult to maintain and to do a reconstruction of their original shape. Also the tissues that give us the characteristics have a great percentage of water. The dehydrating process of mummyfication alters them dramatically.
There are some anecdotes concerning this body. (Cesar Augustus when he visited the grave and approached to kiss the conqueror, the nose fell ecc).
Something strange is that for the Egyptians, nobody should disturb the mummies. This one was in public exposition creating significant revenue and Ptolemy IX in his time changed (!!) the golden sarconice personus with a glass one. Alexander was a pharaoh and all the graves of the other pharaohs were considered sacred, were protected and not opened for any reason. Why not this one?Could you pls give me the exact reference for the article about Cassander?
Panos

[panos]

SusanQuite interesting site. Thanx!Panos

[susan]

In case anyone wonders about the spelling on Panos' posting, I must tell you that the forum posting program changes the letters "f..a..g" to "nice person". So the word 'sarcof..a..g..ous' comes out as 'sarconice personous'
Susan

[marcus]

Hi Panos,I'll try to remember to get all the details on the article tonight - but I apologise in advance if I forget :-)All the bestMarcus

[ScottOden]

Hi all,Curtius, 10.10.20:"Alexander's body was taken to Memphis by Ptolemy, into whose power Egypt had fallen, and transferred from there a few years later to Alexandria, where every mark of respect continues to be paid to his memory and his name."So, based on the above quote, Alexander's body was still 'in residence' in Alexandria in the years between 37 and 41 AD, when Curtius is supposed to have written his History. Had it been disturbed, moved, or fought over, both Curtius and Plutarch would have embraced the chance to add more melodrama to their accounts.It's probably best, when referring to Alexander or the Ptolemies as 'pharaoh', to divorce it in your minds from the ancient son-of-Ra iconography of, say, Ramses the Great. By the Hellenistic age, 'pharaoh' was simply a synonym for 'king'. The duties of Ptolemaic pharaohs* shifted from the divine to the fiscal -- Egypt was as much a business as it was a nation, and its financial well-being superseded religious concerns. There's much evidence extant to show that the Egyptians themselves took part in this new system. However, the thing to remember about Egyptian society is that, by the end of Alexander's reign, it had been in serious decline for close to 200 years. The last revival of pharaonic ideals occured in the 26th dynasty, ending with the Persian invasion of 525 BC. Even before the Persians, a string of usurpers had driven home the fact that, to be pharaoh, one did not neccesarily have to be born of the gods, so long as the gods were given their due (Cambyses' madness was thought to be punishment for insulting the Egyptian god Apis). Nor did Egyptians hold their dead pharaohs inviolate -- tomb robbing has been a staple in Egypt for as long as there's been tombs. To the common Egyptian, what the Macedonians did with their dead king was none of their concern. Yes, Alexander was acclaimed pharaoh by the people, but it was born more from a sense of elation at being freed of the constricting overlordship of Persia than from a revival of the old ways. Ultimately, after the excitement died down, whether they were ruled by Darius or Alexander made little difference to the people of Egypt; they paid their taxes and reaped their harvests exactly as they had done in the past.Just my two obols' worth :)Scott Oden*Alan B. Lloyd has an excellent essay on Ptolemaic Egypt in the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford University Press, 2000).

[John.]

Hi Marcus,I remember Nicator once asked "What was the most vituperative thing ever written about Alexander?"I think it can be found at the end of the Bosworth article you cited from the Journal of Hellenic Studies.If I remember correctly, Bosworth concludes that article, after denying that Alexander had anything to do with a Brotherhood of Man, by conceding that Alexander did unify mankind in one sense: He threw all of humanity that came after him, every man, woman and child, into a never-ending dance of death.I know I read that in the JHS. I think it was from the article you mention. Anyway, that gets my vote for the most vituperative thing ever written about Alexander. Congratulations to Brian Bosworth!John