pothos.org

Hi,

Maybe the translator was to blame- I don't know.

I repeat that I wouldn't put the book up there with the greatest of Italian masterpieces- next to the Mona Lisa or Dante's "Divine Comedy"
however, if I had to reccomend a book to a younger person-on ATG, under the age of say 10 then perhaps I would reccomend it as a fairly easy going, straight, novel- with no poppy cock.
It is written in the vein of an anabasis by Ptolemy which we only find out in the last 3 pages of the book- I suppose that it was a last minute eureka idea by Manfredi after the first two books had gone to print- so he couldn't announce the fact in the first two but the last book. God bless him- but God knows why Stone didn't direct his attention to Mary Renault instead of Valerio for a little "fire from heaven".
Manfredi, historically, isn't so bad in the trilogy-please tell me where he does make a quantum bellyflop in termis of Alexanderian scholarship,as it has missed my detection, for me the problem is his style or moreover his lack of it.

Best regards,
Dean

dean wrote: however, if I had to reccomend a book to a younger person-on ATG, under the age of say 10 then perhaps I would reccomend it as a fairly easy going, straight, novel- with no poppy cock.

It would need to be expurgated for an under-10 - there are some pretty robust scenes that I think Mrs Carter-Pegg would be most upset to find young Tarquin reading (not that Tarquin would be complaining, of course).

ATB

Hello,

I was meaning in its intellectual scope- although I have to be honest that in the chapter dedicated to the burning of Persepolis , thanks to Thais, things do get a little "hotter" than expected!!! (If you know what I mean, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. )

Best
Dean

dean wrote: I was meaning in its intellectual scope- although I have to be honest that in the chapter dedicated to the burning of Persepolis , thanks to Thais, things do get a little "hotter" than expected!!! (If you know what I mean, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. )

It was indeed that very chapter that I was thinking of. I didn't reference it because I started worrying that it was just a figment of my overactive imagination!

But doesn't that say something about the intellectual scope of the books - and if it's really supposed to be Ptolemy's history would he really have included that stuff? I mean, come on!

ATB

And, now, back to the Pressfield thingy.

Dispensing with the novels GÇô which aren't to be bothered with after "Gates of Fire" GÇô the man does have a point. Without going too far into the modern politics of what has become the "Mesopotamian misadventure", the invading forces seriously underestimated the nature of the people they were "liberating" or was that "democratising" (for god's sake, where's imperial Athens when you need her?).

Pressfield's point that "GǪthe clash of East and West is at bottom not about religion. It's about two different ways of being in the world" and that "those ways haven't changed in 2,300 years" is essentially correct. What was singularly misunderstood in a Washington full of hubristic humbuggery was a group of peoples so used to the heel of the ruler and the duplicity of democracy GÇô British, French or American.

In truth, the first "Great War" between East and West had its roots in a "terrorist attack" in about 499 BC when a group of Ionian insurgents and assorted Athenians torched Sardis. At this time a satrapal capital of Empire. The response was overwhelming and GÇô as today GÇô predictable. Herodotus tells us the tale GÇô from the rebel, err, terrorist, side.

The Persian model of government GÇô or empire GÇô although afforded by the "tearing down of walls, the tumult of cavalry charges, and the overthrow of cities" (Aeschylus) nevertheless formed the basis of every structure that followed: Alexander, the Diadochoi, Rome, Parthia, Byzantium and through to the Caliphate. To quote Tom Holland, (Persian Fire):

"The political model established by the Persian Kings would inspire empire after empire, even into the Muslim era: the caliphs, would-be rulers of the world, were precisely echoing, albeit in pious Islamic idiom, the pretensions of Xerxes".

Indeed. And the stated aim of (the dead I'm certain) bin Laden? To have the Caliphate restored to global rule.

It is not at its heart religious. That is the overlay provided by more recent events. But, it seems, no matter how recent those events may be historically, some refuse to learn. The British GÇô so eager to join in the current misadventure GÇô seem entirely to forget their abysmal history in the exact same area some eighty or more years ago.

As to bringing into the ruling claque the tribal big guns, it's too late for that in the current Mesopotamian misadventure. They're running the "insurgency". An easily predictable insurgency GÇô unless you happen to be the moronically myopic Rumsfeld.

And, if it's been missed: yes, I've an opinion on this bastard of a conflict my Prime Minister never asked me about.

Sorry did i miss something!?

There actually IS a bin Laden???

You mean this war is about terrorism and terrorists??

I cant remember where i read it- Alexander and friends pull into some place- there is a liquid there that has amazing burning properties??? Ring any bells???

I think some young kid tries to do a trick with it, or something, by putting the liquid on his body. Which they then light (as you do). He catches on fire etc etc. Alexander becomes distraght and has them put it out.

This liquidy stuff was coming out of the ground.

Can someonw please tell me where this story comes from?!

Aspasia wrote:I cant remember where i read it- Alexander and friends pull into some place- there is a liquid there that has amazing burning properties . . . I think some young kid tries to do a trick with it . . . Can someonw please tell me where this story comes from?!

Plutarch, Life of Alexander 35

35 "As he traversed all Babylonia, which at once submitted to him, he was most of all amazed at the chasm from which fire continually streamed forth as from a spring, and at the stream of naphtha, so abundant as to form a lake, not far from the chasm. This naphtha is in other ways like asphaltum, but is so sensitive to fire that, before the flame touches it, it is kindled by the very radiance about the flame and often sets fire also to the intervening air. To show its nature and power, the Barbarians sprinkled the street leading to Alexander's quarters with small quantities of the liquid; then, standing at the farther end of the street, they applied their torches to the moistened spots; for it was now getting dark. The first spots at once caught fire, and without an appreciable interval of time, but with the speed of thought, the flame darted to the other end, and the street was one continuous fire. Now, there was a certain Athenophanes, an Athenian, one of those who were accustomed to minister to the person of the king when he bathed and anointed himself, and to furnish suitable diversion for his thoughts. This man, one time when there was standing by Alexander in the bath-room a youth who had a ridiculously plain countenance, but was a graceful singer (his name was Stephanus), said, "Wilt thou, O King, that we make a trial of the liquid upon Stephanus? For if it should lay hold of him and not be extinguished, I would certainly say that its power was invincible and terrible." The youth also, strangely enough, offered himself for the experiment, and as soon as he touched the liquid and began to anoint himself with it, his body broke out into so great a flame and was so wholly possessed by fire that Alexander fell into extreme perplexity and fear; and had it not been by chance that many were standing by holding vessels of water for the bath, the youth would have been consumed before aid reached him. Even as it was, they had great difficulty in putting out the fire, for it covered the boy's whole body, and after they had done so, he was in a sorry plight."

Apart from an immediate response to the above along the lines of "Were they all out of their minds?!!!" I've often wondered if I'm the only person who suspects that Alexanders sweet smell came from the perfumed ungents that were found in Darius' casket. The whole bathing and annointing procedure being so long and elaborate (and public) indicates the level of Alexander's fastidiousness. So why wouldn't he have made use of the perfumed oils? The Greeks didn't approve of perfume at this time, I know, but I doubt that would have troubled Alexander. He adopted Persianized clothing, so why not use the king's oils?

Tangent topic, I realize, but I doubt it's worthy of a split thread. Just one of those small things that intrigues me.

Best regards