Lasting Contributions

[amyntoros]

Thanks Pamela, but there are probably quite a few people who will disagree with some or even all of my thoughts. That's the beauty of Pothos - a place where anyone can ask questions and/or express their own opinion (while hopefully attempting to support it with written or archaeological evidence). Our members, including myself, have been known to disagree with even the most renowned Alexander scholars! In the end, it all boils down to reading what you can, discussing what you wish, and then forming your own opinion. Two things in particular have often been said: (1) everyone has their *own* Alexander, and (2) there is no definitive history of the man!Your own contributions to the forum are much appreciated. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[susan]

Hi Linda AnnThanks for a very interesting set of postings - there's plenty to think about. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few other evidences for the improved role of women after Alexander:1) Amastris, niece of Darius III and one-time wife of Crateros, had coins minted with her image when she was Queen of Heracleia. ( Last week we saw them in the British Museum)2) Seleucus named towns after his mother and wife : Laodicea and Apamea, both in modern day Syria. I note that Alexander didn't name any town after Olympias.3) Minor point : details of where Berenike ( Ptolemy I's wife) gave birth are recorded; it was in Cyprus but I can't remember the citation. It seems that Ptolemy was fairly solicitous of her comfort, which again accords with a higher status.Susan

[amyntoros]

I wasn't familiar with Seleucus' naming towns after women, so thanks for that. Then there's also Cassander's naming of Thessaloniki, which I had completely forgotten about.As for Alexander and Olympias - it's almost amusing when you consider that he never named a city after his mother, yet he did name one after both his horse and his dog! Still, these cities were named after the animals died, so if he had outlived Olympias who knows what he might have done. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[ancientlibrary]

This is an interesting line of argument. I've got my hands full right now, but will reply in more detail as soon as I get free. (I'll start a new thread and link to this.) Some of this thread has burned out. You think it encouraging that Alexander married for "love." I prefer to see it through the lense of the Greek word, Eros--sex. I'm not sure how we can get anywhere with the sculpture either. I don't see how the frequency of female representations--naked or not--has anything necessary to do with the general status of women. Objects are silent by themselves. I think we're left with the royal women. My basic argument is royal doings are not representative of Greek society in general. More specifically, I think these examples demonstrate dynastic dynamics unrelated to the place of women in any larger sense. This phenomenon is often misperceived in the modern world as well. Looking at gender alone one might come to believe that India and Pakistan were a feminist paradise. Both have had female prime ministers, when most western countries had not. In each case, however, the women (Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto) were chosen because of their dynastic position--the daughter of a revered male prime minister, when the male options seemed limited. Where family is king, family loyalty trumps gender. The natural exension of this can be seen particularly clearly. In India, when Indira Ghandi was killed, her son, an airplane pilot with scant experience or interest in government was chosen to succeed her. After his assassination there was an experiment with non-dynastic government. But, at present, the Indian National Congress leader and shadow-PM is (the also slain) Rajiv's wife, Sonia Gandhi, who is not only a woman but an Italian! That the Macedonians had queens proves little about the improvement of the female condition; Victorian England had one too.Incidentally, what do we make of the vitriol Olympias comes up for? Surely this negative evidence must be taken into account as well.

[amyntoros]

You think it encouraging that Alexander married for "loveGǪ"Tim, I had composed a detailed response explaining, again, that I have never thought that Alexander married for love, (see my previous posts) or for sex for that matter; and that the so-called love affair was pure and ultimately successful publicity to obscure the real reason for his marriage. However, it would be best served on a thread with a different theme because, yes, it has "burned out" on this topic. I do need to make some comment though. I'm not caught up in the concept of a romanticized, chivalrous Alexander, and my arguments aren't fueled by emotionally-based feminine ideals. On the contrary, I'm quite dispassionate about his relationships with women and am presenting logical arguments. Now, if I've finally cleared that upGǪ " I'm not sure how we can get anywhere with the sculpture either. I don't see how the frequency of female representations--naked or not--has anything necessary to do with the general status of women. Objects are silent by themselves." I don't agree and I *know* we can learn much about any society from the art of its period, but this single topic alone is worthy of an art history thesis, best written in conjunction with an archaeological scholar. Unfortunately, you only have me, and I'll see what I can come up with that is worthy of this debate, but it will definitely be at a later date."I think we're left with the royal women. My basic argument is royal doings are not representative of Greek society in general." I never suggested that royal doings were "representative" of the society, but that they influenced it and brought about changes. And your drawing parallels with the modern world isn't convincing me against this in any shape or form, I'm afraid. I'm attempting to view Hellenistic women in the context of their time - if we start comparing Macedonian queens and their influence with queens or other important women throughout history then we're going to completely lose focus on the argument at hand. Society and culture in Hellenistic times was so different from our own - it's impossible to isolate individuals in such disparate periods and then compare their roles and their effect. I'm not saying you couldn't do it and find "some" commonalities, but it would ultimately be pointless and prove nothing. (I'm putting my response to your remark on Olympias in a separate post.)

[amyntoros]

"GǪwhat do we make of the vitriol Olympias comes up for? Surely this negative evidence must be taken into account as well." Justin is the least flattering towards Olympias, but even he mostly reports her actions rather than expressing an opinion, except for the occasional comment such as "like a furious woman rather than a queenGǪ" (14.6) Arrian tells of the "headstong nature of Olympias, her sharp temper and interfering ways, most unfiitting to the mother of Alexander," (7.12.6), but this remark is attributed to Antipater who had good reason not to like Olympias, and is hardly condemnatory - a headstrong nature and sharp temper can also be attributed to Alexander! As for the rest and the minor sources, with the small exception of Pausanias who says Olympias "behaved wickedly" and deserved her subsequent treatment at the hands of Cassander (1.11.4), I see no "vitriol" in the works of the ancients. That view of Olympias is to be found in works by modern writers, most of them male, and is a reflection of how she is seen today - *not* how she was viewed in Hellenistic times. Current condemnation of Olympias tell us plenty about the mores and attitudes of society today, but absolutely nothing about how the ancients thought of her. The sources report what she did and said with minimal condemnation. Their greatest objection seems to be her influence on Alexander regarding his supposed apotheosis. Those writers who object to Alexander thinking himself a god also object to Olympias' role in the events. ( And for the same reason they have even more pronounced objections to poor old Callisthenes!) I find no cumulative negative evidence on Olympias!I'm out of time now. This last is definitely a topic for a different thread if you want to pursue it further.