Descendants to Alexander the Greath

[amyntoros]

Hi Alexander and Andrew, I don't necessarily disagree with either of you on general points, but I still think it leads us back to the likelihood that Alexander had no further, unknown offspring. One way or another, for whatever the reason, Alexander is portrayed as being self-controlled regarding sex. Whether Alexander truly had little interest in sexual relations with women, or whether it was his need to keep up appearances, or whether it was simply the intent of most ancient writers themselves to portray Alexander as being moderate and self-restrained in sexual matters, it still seems unlikely that other children born of Alexander could have gone without mention. The *huge* protestations regarding Darius' wife do suggest that *some* people thought Alexander might have had intercourse with her (whether it is true is a whole different debate that I'm not going to go into now) but the protestations strengthen my point. If her death, supposedly "in childbirth," caused such a stir amongst some of the writers and necessitated such heavy denial regarding Alexander's *lack* of contact with her, then any other serious dalliance, especially one that produced offspring, would surely have also merited attention from at least *one* of the sources, even if they only tried to argue it away. Further to this, as Alexander says, "Curtius would have stultified his entire argument if had proceeded, in the following chapter, to recount how Alexander was overcome with desire for the beautiful captive, Barsine, and how he fathered on her the child Hercules!" So. . . . Curtius ignores the relationship at this point, but later on it becomes necessary for him to mention the child Herakles - he simply can't avoid it. Now, obviously the Alexander/Barsine relationship was discussed in a contemporary source, even if Curtius chose to avoid it. Any further relationships producing children would surely have caused some comment in the sources - at some point. My thoughts are that the extant sources, depending on the writer, would have either tried to argue such a relationship away or ignore it completely, but any probable/possible offspring would be unavoidably brought to our attention after Alexander died - if not immediately, then certainly after Alexander IV was killed. Best regards, Amyntoros

[xxx]

Not to mention a harem consisted of women of all ages and female relatives of the King...not as portrayed in movies of young nubile females. They were in effect the King's women, but not necessarily his lovers...

[marcus]

Well, yes, exactly. It all rather conforms to the lurid imagining of the Eastern harem that was propagated by romantic writers of the 19th century (not to mention a few opium-addled explorers of said period!). They must have been reading Curtius before they went on their travels.ATBMarcus

[abm]

Hi Marilyn and Linda,the whole hetero- or homosexual debate is a totally different matter as it indeed tries to apply modern values to ancient people. Whether Alexander was self-restrained or not, is a question that does not involve any modern values, but we simply do not have the proper source material to decide it, and i'm afraid simply believing the sources is a bit too simple here, since we know they often remodelled these kind of things.even in antiquity having sex did not necessarily mean having children and I really think you overestimate what we (can) know about antiquity. About 90% of the sources are lost and those we have are late and far from complete; they never even wanted to be complete. The importance of other children was certainly high in the age of the successors, but afterwards it must have faded quite quickly. What did it mean to authors writing about 300 years after the events?I would like to hear what arguments can be adduced against Heracles being Alexander's son, because I cannot think of any valid ones and the point has been proven conlusively 30 years ago by P.A. Brunt, GÇÿAlexander, Barsine and HeraclesGÇÖ, Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 103 (1975), pp. 22-34.regards,abm

[Marilyn]

A. Meeus said: the whole hetero- or homosexual debate is a totally different matter as it indeed tries to apply modern values to ancient people. MY point was, we can't assume that OUR modern mores were the SAME as in the past so we have to be careful not to assume dominant paradigms were the sameA. Meeus said: and i'm afraid simply believing the sources is a bit too simple here, since we know they often remodelled these kind of things.My point exactly- that we CONTINUE to remodel them, as we wish things to be. Don't be so patronizing, I'm not ignorant & I'm not stupidA. Meeus said: I really think you overestimate what we (can) know about antiquity.Yet writers, hobbyists & historians continue to do this & a lot of times, the written words become "fact", altho its all just opinion, as in: A Meeus said: The importance of other children was certainly high in the age of the successors, but afterwards it must have faded quite quickly. What did it mean to authors writing about 300 years after the events?But inheritance lines WERE still important to the Romans so I think they would consider that worthy of note from the sourcesand A. Meeus said: would like to hear what arguments can be adduced against Heracles being Alexander's son, because I cannot think of any valid ones and the point has been proven conlusively 30 years ago by P.A. Brunt, GÇÿAlexander, Barsine and HeraclesGÇÖ, Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 103 (1975), pp. 22-34.Hmmm, "proven" from what? Those same sources you just said we couldn't depend on? If he WAS a legitimate claimant, why wasn't Heracles accepted as an heir and proclaimed that by a majority? Why isn't anymore focus given to him in the histories? He gets about as much mention as some of the other myths and tales. Maybe HIS existance was written in by later historians based on what THEY wanted to prove, say or defend. Assuming his parentage can't be proven, it can only be surmised, so its opinion. Since we DON'T have most of the sources, how can you say that none of them denied the heracles stories?

[amyntoros]

Hi Alexander, WasnGÇÖt sure which part of your post was addressed to me as IGÇÖm not getting involved in the hetero/homosexual debate (at least this time around!) and I havenGÇÖt studied Heracles to the degree where I could argue one way or the other. SoGǪ we must be talking about the sources! ***** The importance of other children was certainly high in the age of the successors, but afterwards it must have faded quite quickly. What did it mean to authors writing about 300 years after the events?***** I donGÇÖt agree, IGÇÖm afraid, and although having sex did not necessarily mean having children, the two are inextricably tied together. You think we donGÇÖt have enough source material to decide if Alexander was self-restrained but I see enough mention of sex in the extant sources to make a judgment call. And, more importantly, if there were further affairs on AlexanderGÇÖs part I believe they *would* have made it into at least some of these same surviving sources. Look at Plutarch. Whether you believe everything he says or not, he reported the most inconsequential things in his biography and other writings that pertained to AlexanderGÇÖs sexuality. The remark about EviusGÇÖ beloved, Antipatrides music girl, the letter to Theodorus, the endless comments on AlexanderGÇÖs self-control, and much more. My current favorite is from the Moralia, (339. F) on PhilotasGÇÖ mistress: GÇ£Craterus brought Antigona herself secretly to Alexander, who did not touch her person, but restrained himself and, working secretly through her, he discovered the whole of PhilotasGÇÖs plans.GÇ¥ Hmmmm, Alexander did not touch her person, but restrained himself??!! Now who for one moment would have *expected* Alexander to have gotten sexually involved with Antigona under these circumstances? Here is a good example of Plutarch protesting too much, however, it reinforces my point. If there had been further occasional mention of AlexanderGÇÖs relations with other women in the original sources Plutarch might have chosen not to put them in his book, although if there was offspring I canGÇÖt see him ignoring it.. However, if there were *frequent* mentions of AlexanderGÇÖs sexual proclivity in the lost sources (and Plutarch cites a great number of those sources) then I simply donGÇÖt believe Plutarch would have regarded Alexander as highly as he did. His so-called GÇ£self-restraintGÇ¥ was extremely important to Plutarch!. . . continued

[amyntoros]

As for Curtius, I originally wavered about including that particular quote because it isn't really an accurate indication of Curtius' attitude. I think that Barsine is simply an error of omission - after all, he has no qualms about bringing up Cleophis and Thalestris, does he? Or Bagoas for that matter where he earlier says specifically that Bagoas had a sexual relationship with Alexander. In fact, I suspect that Curtius' line about "control over immoderate urges; a sex-life limited to the fulfillment of natural desire; and indulgence only in pleasures which were socially sanctioned" is an attempt, perhaps even unconsciously, to disqualify or draw the reader's attention away from the Bagoas affair. (It's very, very obvious that Curtius despises eunuchs.) The clues are all in the sentence. . .immoderate urges. . .natural desire. . . pleasures which were socially sanctioned. I don't think he's talking about women here! So, all in all, if there were other sexual affairs and/or offspring then I see no reason why he wouldn't have written about them - his is the most "sensationalistic" account of Alexander's life after all.***** About 90% of the sources are lost and those we have are late and far from complete; they never even wanted to be complete. **** This is a good lead into discussing Justin. In his very brief epitome of Trogus, Alexander's life is reduced to comparatively few pages, many important details are missing and we could hardly call it a "complete" history of Alexander, yet he still manages to bring up the love-affair with Barsine and the birth of Heracles, the presumed son by Cleophis, *and* the Amazon queen! Heck, it is in Justin's short history of Philip that we are told he had sexual relations with Alexander of Epirus!I'm sorry Alexander, but I think it is you that overestimates the ancients (and modern values don't apply one way or the other here.) It appears that they were just as interested in non-marital sex as we seem to be today. That said, I can't imagine that any other surviving illegitimate child of Alexander's wouldn't have been thought worth of mention, even 300 years after the event.Best regards,Amyntoros

[abm]

first of all, I did not mean to be patronizing and don't see how you ca interpret my post that way, but if you really think it gave that impression, I apologize for that (although your reply also seems rather patronizing). I was only being polemical -not a bad thing on a discussion board, I think- and trying to be clear, but apperently I did not succeed at that. It certainly was possible to express my views in a more subtle way, but I'm not a native speaker of English and I don't have the time to spend an hour on every post here. Anyhow, I never assumed you are ignorant or stupid.I understood that your point was that "we can't assume that OUR modern mores were the SAME as in the past". That's exactly why I said that the hetero- or homosexual debate is a totally different matter, because the ancient Greeks did not think in these categories. As for sexual self-restraint, however, I don't see how I could be imposing modern mores in what I said, because humans are humans, they all have sex, and to me it really doesn't matter whether Alexander did it three times a day or once every five years, so I have no attitude to impose here. Some ancient authors, however, could have wanted to present Alexander as more moderate than he actually was; that was my point. I did not say whether he really was as self-restrained as the sources portray him or not. I did say that to my mind a passage as the one Marcus quoted from Curtius is more deserving of our trust, as it does not imply an explicit judgement of values, while for the reason stated above I'm less inclined to trust their moral interpretations."inheritance lines WERE still important to the Romans "I don't really see your point here. If you mean inheritance lines in general, you are probably right (I don't know enough about that), but that doesn't necessarily imply that in this particular instance later authors really were interested in these particular illegitimate children. Moreover, I never said there were more children of Alexander's, but I meant that there might be other children we don't know of. Since most of the primary sources on Alexander were written in the age of the Successors, it is even possible that they argued the existance of other children away or simply did not mention them, as the Successors did not really need more argeads. ON the contrary, they did there best to kill them if they couldn't use them. Therefor, it certainly is possible that a source once existed which could have claim

[abm]

Therefor, it certainly is possible that a source once existed which could have claimed Heracles was not Alexander's son, but in my view that would have been propaganda and for the rest of this see below. I never stated any of these things as "fact".I did state as fact that Heracles was Alexander's son, because, with the sources we currently have, I really see no other methodologically sound conclusion. With "proven" I did not mean mathematically, of course. Again, I never said we can't depend on the sources for events. In fact we have to, because there is nothing else than those sources; if one doesn't want to depend on them, one should not get involved in the study of history. However, our main sources are interpretations by ancient authors whose main purpose was not always reporting as acurately as possible about the past (I know you know this, but my line of argument requires that I say this), so we must be carefull when assuming that these interpretations are anything more than their personal interpretations."If he WAS a legitimate claimant, why wasn't Heracles accepted as an heir and proclaimed that by a majority?"Because apart from Nearchus, few people had any interests in his kingship when Alexander died."Why isn't anymore focus given to him in the histories?"Because, we only have very abbreviated accounts and most of his life he never did anything, as far as we know that is, but actually I don't see what he could have done: he was probably 'imprisoned' somewhere, until he was used to in the power struggle of the Successors, but then he was killed immediately."Maybe HIS existance was written in by later historians based on what THEY wanted to prove, say or defend."That's possible, but to my mind it's unsound to assume that without any further arguments, and I really don't see any."Assuming his parentage can't be proven, it can only be surmised, so its opinion."If you reason like this, I don't see why you waste your time on the study of ancient history, unless you think it's all such a beautiful story. This certainly is valid point of view, as valid as mine, but if that really is what you think, there's no point in us discussing things, since we are simply talking about different things then."Since we DON'T have most of the sources, how can you say that none of them denied the heracles stories?"As I said above, such sources might have existed, but then I think they probably were propagandictic or they might

[abm]

such sources might have existed, but then I think they probably were propagandictic or they might indeed prove me wrong, but again if one always assumes that there might be a lost source that would change our views completely, which is possible of course, one cannot study history without becoming depressed. Thus, I use the sources we have in trying to recostruct the past and of course everybody knows one day another source might show up which proves we were totally wrong on something, but since it would be truly patronizing and boring to say something everybody already knows all the time, I don't say it and until that source shows I up, I prefer to work with to most plausible interpretation we can get.I apologize for the lenghth of this reply.regards,abm

[amyntoros]

Alexander - a very interesting post that I want to take more time later to properly digest.I don't think you ever need to apologize about the length of your posts, but then again, I'm almost always guilty of the same thing. All the best, Amyntoros

[abm]

Hi Linda,I'm sorry I didn't reply yesterday, but I didn't have enough time and this is also a very interesting post I wanted to read again today before replying to it.Indeed, we are talking about the sources and I'm afraid I cannot say much more than that at present I have to yield to your superior knowledge of the sources on Alexander's reign (but I hope to work on that soon), so I cannot really argue with everything you said here. Whether there could be any offspring Plutarch ignored is a point we already discussed regarding Metz Epitome 70 (the the child of 326), and I don't see what I can add to that: in my view Metz epitome 70 remains quite a strong argument for assuming that Plutarch probably did not mention all children of Alexander he knew of or that he simply did not know all of them (does he mention Heracles? I should check that). Some other points I already made in my last reply to Marilyn. I absolutely agree that in general people in antiquity were just as interested in non-marital sex as we seem to be today, but that does not mean it was the main focus of those Alexandersources we still possess. I didn't really mean that any other surviving illegitimate child of Alexander's wouldn't have been thought worth of mention in later times, but since it was no longer politically important, later sources wouldn't have been obliged to mention it. As said, that doesn't mean they weren't interested in non-marital sex and illegitimate children, but since none of the works that survived the ages is a monography on Alexander's sex life, the authors had to chose what to include and what not to; if they wanted to write a "balanced" overview of Alexander's career (or in Plutarch's case rather his character), they problably couldn't mention all anecdotes concerning sex/children, since that was not their main interest in writing their works.regards,abm

[Marilyn]

>first of all, I did not mean to be patronizing and don't see how you ca interpret my post that way, but if you really think it gave that impression, I apologize for that (although your reply also seems rather patronizing).first of all, I did not mean to be patronizing and don't see how you ca interpret my post that way, but if you really think it gave that impression, I apologize for that (although your reply also seems rather patronizing).first of all, I did not mean to be patronizing and don't see how you ca interpret my post that way, but if you really think it gave that impression, I apologize for that (although your reply also seems rather patronizing).Well, then, though I can't see it, I'll apologize too..> As for sexual self-restraint, however, I don't see how I could be imposing modern mores in what I said, because humans are humans, they all have sex, and to me it really doesn't matter whether Alexander did it three times a day or once every five years, As for sexual self-restraint, however, I don't see how I could be imposing modern mores in what I said, because humans are humans, they all have sex, and to me it really doesn't matter whether Alexander did it three times a day or once every five years, As for sexual self-restraint, however, I don't see how I could be imposing modern mores in what I said, because humans are humans, they all have sex, and to me it really doesn't matter whether Alexander did it three times a day or once every five years,But I think you CAN interpret his "restraint" beyond just "restraint". I think its safe to wonder if Alexander, knowing Macedonian politics, chose not to have offspring & made sure he didn't. I can't imagine, all things considered & all people considered, that Alexander would've wanted to leave ANY kid behind. > Curtius is more deserving of our trust, as it does not imply an explicit judgement of values, while for the reason stated above I'm less inclined to trust their moral interpretations. Curtius is more deserving of our trust, as it does not imply an explicit judgement of values, while for the reason stated above I'm less inclined to trust their moral interpretations. Curtius is more deserving of our trust, as it does not imply an explicit judgement of values, while for the reason stated above I'm less inclined to trust their moral interpretations.But I think there's a lot of room for error both ways. After all, one makes a statement of fact but it might well be that the "moral interpretation" could still be a statement of fact.>I don't really see your point here. If you mean inheritance lines in general, you are probably rightI don't really see your point here. If you mean inheritance lines in general, you are probably rightI don't really see your point here. If you mean inheritance lines in general, you are probably rightWell, you said they might not've mentioned any kids cuz they weren't interested in inheritance, but I think they would still have been interested in any offspring by Alexander, since family lines were important not only to the Romans but to their historical interest, just like ours> Since most of the primary sources on Alexander were written in the age of the Successors, it is even possible that they argued the existance of other children away or simply did not mention them, as the Successors did not really need more argeads. Since most of the primary sources on Alexander were written in the age of the Successors, it is even possible that they argued the existance of other children away or simply did not mention them, as the Successors did not really need more argeads. Since most of the primary sources on Alexander were written in the age of the Successors, it is even possible that they argued the existance of other children away or simply did not mention them, as the Successors did not really need more argeads.Yet they still put Arridious forth. & kept Alex 4th alive for 14 years, so there could've been political
leverage in having ANY kid of Alexander's around.

[Marilyn]

>Because apart from Nearchus, few people had any interests in his kingship when Alexander died.Because apart from Nearchus, few people had any interests in his kingship when Alexander died.Because apart from Nearchus, few people had any interests in his kingship when Alexander died.But WHY? Is it possible its because they didn't think he was Alexander's son & was put forth by nearchus for his own interests? They seemed to jump at Arridios & Roxanne's kid quick enough- maybe Statier'as too but we'll never know>Because, we only have very abbreviated accounts and most of his life he never did anything, as far as we know that is, but actually I don't see what he could have done: he was probably 'imprisoned' somewhere, until he was used to in the power struggle of the Successors, but then he was killed immediately.Because, we only have very abbreviated accounts and most of his life he never did anything, as far as we know that is, but actually I don't see what he could have done: he was probably 'imprisoned' somewhere, until he was used to in the power struggle of the Successors, but then he was killed immediately.Because, we only have very abbreviated accounts and most of his life he never did anything, as far as we know that is, but actually I don't see what he could have done: he was probably 'imprisoned' somewhere, until he was used to in the power struggle of the Successors, but then he was killed immediately.Why would he be Improsoned during Alexande's life? He wasn't a baby by the time Alexander died, if he WAS Alexander's"Assuming his parentage can't be proven, it can only be surmised, so its opinion."If you reason like this, I don't see why you waste your time on the study of ancient history, unless you think it's all such a beautiful story.LOL you're so funny. No, I don't think its a beautiful story, but I DO think WE add a LOT to it as WE want. I just don't see Heracles parentage a proven like you do. & I think some of the macedonians didn't see it either, which is WHY he was not in the running at Alexander's death

[Marilyn]

>such sources might have existed, but then I think they probably were propagandictic or they might indeed prove me wrong, but again if one always assumes that there might be a lost source that would change our views completely, which is possible of course, one cannot study history without becoming depressed.such sources might have existed, but then I think they probably were propagandictic or they might indeed prove me wrong, but again if one always assumes that there might be a lost source that would change our views completely, which is possible of course, one cannot study history without becoming depressed.such sources might have existed, but then I think they probably were propagandictic or they might indeed prove me wrong, but again if one always assumes that there might be a lost source that would change our views completely, which is possible of course, one cannot study history without becoming depressed.
>I just don't think thats the case for everyone. I actually enjoy looking at the sources & looking at alternative possibilities BASED on what we know & what we don't know, but what we know about people then & now.
I prefer to work with to most plausible interpretation we can get.I just don't think thats the case for everyone. I actually enjoy looking at the sources & looking at alternative possibilities BASED on what we know & what we don't know, but what we know about people then & now.
I prefer to work with to most plausible interpretation we can get.I just don't think thats the case for everyone. I actually enjoy looking at the sources & looking at alternative possibilities BASED on what we know & what we don't know, but what we know about people then & now.
I prefer to work with to most plausible interpretation we can get.So do i but itys obvious that interpretations CAN differ even from the same sources. Anyway, other than heracles I don't see a lot of offspring being reasonable cuz of both Alexander's noted nature & the politics & people surrounding him
I apologize for the lenghth of this reply.