Recognition

[jasonxx]

Smitty snd Alex I agree with you both but my perspective is more rational I guess.

The Mythological Heroes were great and nice to measure against. As Smitty says about the Heroes by the time of Alexander the minds must be working out that the Myth Heroes were fairy stories. Not to say they disgarded the Gods Philosophy. I dont think we can quite dismiss a higher Power or god whatever it is. Something picks out people in history that makes them Shine like beacons I call it a higher power. We can have that without been religios.

But the Robin hoods. King Arthur. Achilles Samson even Moses with his miracles are out right fantasy. Ancient Egyptian History mentions nothing of the Jewish deeds or heroes.

Actual historical evidence catagorically proves Alexander Achieved more than any Mythological Greek hero. Alexanders History etc lays testimony to the basic outlines of his acheivements,The Heroes are fantastic but bottom line they are still Superman Spiderman or even batman.

The Shield etc that Alexander was supposed to claim at Troy a mere token of invention. As I have said about Achilles before he was actually a fake and a cheat playing a stacked deck. We know his mother dipped him in the Stix to make him invincible so what Chance did Hector really have. Unless he got lucky as Paris his and got him in the heel with a poison arrow.

Alexander far excelled any of the Greek heroes by the fact he actually breathed.

Kenny

[marcus]

The Historia de Preliis has Christianising elements, due to incorporations of material from Josephus, Jerome and others by an early unknown redactor of Leo's version. It was so popular in medieval times that the depiction of the griffin chariot in St Mark's is likely to have occurred quite independently of my association of the Basilica with Alexander. It is probably just a coincidence.

As you say, probably a coincidence. The image of Alexander rising to heaven was quite common in Medieval art - there is a carving of it on one of the choirstalls of Wells Cathedral, for a start*. (That's a bit closer for you to get to, Andrew, but at some point I want to get down there and have a butchers.) No doubt it can be found in many other places, too; I just happen to know of the one at Wells.

[*5 mins later - just checked: apparently it was on a misericord to begin with, but at some point more recently was removed and stuck up on the wall.]

ATB

[pankration]

There are great arguments being presented here. It must be remembered however that Achilles and Herakles were considered REAL by Alexander and all other Greeks. The fact that Achilles had a tomb indicates that he existed. As far as the mythology is concerned, it is tradition among many cultures to turn their heroes into gods. In the ancient world this was practice not an exception.

In today's world this deification sounds ludicrous but we can't judge ancient Greece on present standards.

[smittysmitty]

Why would any Greek dare fight against a descendant of Heracles - a man begat by the father of the gods?, let alone Achilles' line. Surely such a man would have flowers thrown at his feet wherever he went in the Greek world - if it was really believed to be the case. Wouldn't that be so? Such a man would be considered a living institution amongst the Greeks.

It has nothing to do with modern sensibilities, the actions of the Greeks during Alexanders age would suggest such mythical stories counted for little.

Oh yeah! "the fact that Achilles had a tomb proves he existed". Does it?

[amyntoros]

It has nothing to do with modern sensibilities, the actions of the Greeks during Alexanders age would suggest such mythical stories counted for little.

I think it has everything to do with modern sensibilities. If the mythical stories counted for little, how do you explain the temples to Heracles, dotted over the ancient world? Or the religious festivals, celebrated in his name?

Oh yeah! "the fact that Achilles had a tomb proves he existed". Does it?

It proves that the ancient Greeks believed that he existed, doesn't it?

I don't know, Smitty ... it seems to me that you're saying that if we don't believe in the myths, the ancients couldn't have either.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

The image of Alexander rising to heaven was quite common in Medieval art - there is a carving of it on one of the choirstalls of Wells Cathedral, for a start*. (That's a bit closer for you to get to, Andrew, but at some point I want to get down there and have a butchers.) No doubt it can be found in many other places, too; I just happen to know of the one at Wells. [*5 mins later - just checked: apparently it was on a misericord to begin with, but at some point more recently was removed and stuck up on the wall.]

There's another slightly strange version (Church at Remagen) online at:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0951-0 ... size=LARGE

I wonder whether there's any connection between the griffin-chariot and the image of Alexander-Triptolemus in the allegory of the foundation of Alexandria on a long series of drachms minted in the city from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius? Alexander stands naked in a chariot drawn by a pair of winged serpents wearing the elephant scalp headdress and scattering seeds from a bag (there are a couple under coin images on my website). The serpents are the pair of "drakontes" said by Ptolemy to have guided Alexander to and from the Siwa oracle. On the way back he founded Alexandria by marking the layout with barley meal, chalk being in short supply. The coins would have circulated widely in Egypt and its vicinity for several centuries.

Cordially,

Andrew

[pankration]

Why would any Greek dare fight against a descendant of Heracles - a man begat by the father of the gods?, let alone Achilles' line. Surely such a man would have flowers thrown at his feet wherever he went in the Greek world - if it was really believed to be the case. Wouldn't that be so? Such a man would be considered a living institution amongst the Greeks.

It has nothing to do with modern sensibilities, the actions of the Greeks during Alexanders age would suggest such mythical stories counted for little.

Oh yeah! "the fact that Achilles had a tomb proves he existed". Does it?

Actually, it does...to the ancient Greeks. As for Greeks bowing down to the feet of a descendant of Herakles, you forget the personal relationship Greeks had with their Gods. Zeus et.al were not deities comparable to the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims (of later years for the latter two). Greek gods had human desires and foibles and were noteworthy for their humanness and their frailities. The Macedonian royalty publicly claimed descent from Herakles and Achilles; it was no secret. Yet Philip was assassinated, other Greeks fought with Alexander and Alexander's closest confidantes rejected the idea of deification, in spite of their acceptance of his descent.

Being analytical is great, it's what makes this forum unique. However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. You are putting a modern interpretation on an ancient religion and culture.

[marcus]

There's another slightly strange version (Church at Remagen) online at:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0951-0 ... size=LARGE

I wonder whether there's any connection between the griffin-chariot and the image of Alexander-Triptolemus in the allegory of the foundation of Alexandria on a long series of drachms minted in the city from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius? Alexander stands naked in a chariot drawn by a pair of winged serpents wearing the elephant scalp headdress and scattering seeds from a bag (there are a couple under coin images on my website). The serpents are the pair of "drakontes" said by Ptolemy to have guided Alexander to and from the Siwa oracle. On the way back he founded Alexandria by marking the layout with barley meal, chalk being in short supply. The coins would have circulated widely in Egypt and its vicinity for several centuries.

Hi Andrew,

It sounds possible. I haven't had time to look at the coin images you mention, but will try to do so in the next day or two.

Unfortunately, the link of the Remagen version of the ascension wouldn't open, but never mind - I'm sure I can do a google search at some point for it.

ATB

[amyntoros]

I wonder whether there's any connection between the griffin-chariot and the image of Alexander-Triptolemus in the allegory of the foundation of Alexandria on a long series of drachms minted in the city from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius? Alexander stands naked in a chariot drawn by a pair of winged serpents wearing the elephant scalp headdress and scattering seeds from a bag (there are a couple under coin images on my website). The serpents are the pair of "drakontes" said by Ptolemy to have guided Alexander to and from the Siwa oracle.

I didn’t know about the coins (so I’m obviously unaware of any connection between them and the griffin chariot), but many thanks for this information. It seems to add support to the part of the Romance which concerns Alexander’s foundation of the city having either some basis in fact or being a part of the very earliest myths about Alexandria. I certainly don’t think that Pseudo Callisthenes created the tale out of thin air. You probably remember my thoughts in an earlier thread about the mention of the snakes in the Romance and the Agathos Daimon’s importance to Alexandria. Since then I found and transcribed a chapter of a book, Recueil D'Itudes Offert Par Les Auteurs de La Sirie Itudes (on Google Book search) which discusses the later Roman conflation of Serapis and the Agathos Daimon into one patron god of the city, the original having been the Agathos Daimon alone. (Oh, and for those here who might not know, the Agathos Daimon was a snake. ) The chapter is concerned with archaeological evidence and the writer, Michal Pietrzykowski, does say that the temple to the Agathos Daimon was a fact, but no doubt you already knew that. I’m now convinced that Ptolemy’s version of the trip to Siwah is quite deliberate in its claim that Alexander was guided by talking snakes rather than birds. And I’m beginning to wonder about the veracity of the story about Alexander saving Ptolemy’s life after a snakebite. Either it IS true, thereby explaining the importance of snakes to Ptolemy and Alexandria, or it’s another deliberately created legend. At this point I’m opting for the former.

Sorry for the diversionary nature of this post, but my interest was piqued.

Best regards,

[aleksandros]

Alexander was not the only one who claimed descendance from Heracles or Achilles. There were hole populations who claimed descendance from such heroes. The Spartans also claimed descendance from Heracles. It didn't mean that anyone who descended from a hero had something special. It just noted the glorious past of a people.

[jasonxx]

Sorry marcus

I accept at the time Alexander may have thought he was rivaling heroes and gods maybe exactly so. But our perspective and knowledge knows he far outdid this gods or heroes in reall terms.

Kenny

[azara]

Hi, all!
About myths and heroes : a new perspective has come recently from a book by Adrienne Mayor, “The first fossil hunters”. The thesis is that there is a striking correlation between fossil finds and Greek myths and folklore. In other words, the Greeks imagined giants, monsters and heroes (who were also larger than ordinary men) because they found peculiar and enormous bones abundant in the Greek world, which had to be accounted for; they accepted without scandal the idea that in the past creatures had existed different from those of the present, which had gone extinct (by the way, Darwin wished his contemporaries could do the same!) and tried to find explanations of the circumstances of their existence and end. The bones belonged to mastodons, mammouths and the like, but were often mistaken for human. This thesis is fascinating, because it reconciles the fantasy of the Greeks with their sound rationalism. An example from the book : Philostratus (III century a.D.) writes in “On heroes”: “My grandfather [a farmer from Gallipoli is speaking] said that the grave of Ajax was destroyed by the sea and a skeleton came to light about 16 feet tall. He said that the emperor Hadrian laid it out for burial, embraced and kissed some of the bones, and built a tomb for it at Troy”. The book is full of meticulous documentation, and it turns out that such episodes (sometimes quite entertaining) were very common and people flocked to the places of the finds to survey, to investigate or simply out of curiosity. So it seems that the Greeks believed in myths not out of blind credulity: there were sceptics, but believers felt that logic and science were on their own side. Alexander undoubtedly believed that heroes could still exist in the Age of Men, but their excellence could only be that of the spirit.
To Markus and Taphoi: Alexander rising to heaven features also in the Mosaic of Otranto, where he is seated on a throne supported by two griffins. Here is a link:

www.atres.com

Another one: mosaic in Trani Cathedral. Link:

http://www.storiamedievale2.net/Artemed ... tran05.jpg

Best regards to all
Azara

(Listing of one link above edited by moderator, only to reduce width of the page. )

[Efstathios]

Greek gods had human desires and foibles and were noteworthy for their humanness and their frailities.

Because they were probably humans.

But it is wrong to try to understand how the ancients percieved the gods and religion while we know so little.

I consider the thesis of Diodorus ,who said that the gods were humans, kings, very long ago who made great achievements and were important, to be the most probable theory.Later on they became mythical persons, and people started to adapt their theories of religion at these persons. So that's why we see a mixture of gods who are like humans and act like humans, but who are also considered to be cosmic powers by some philosophers. We all know how the Greeks percieved Zeus, but nevertheless Socrates and other philosophers matched in his face the creator of all. And while in the early years he was the father and leader of the gods, he eventually became very similar to the God of the Holy Bible, the one and universal God. And of course these thoughts were not always accepted easily by the priests or the people but eventually they grew on them.

Still, there are many things that we dont know about the ancient Greek religion.

There is a big difference between the people that claimed to be descentans of gods and Alexander. He claimed to be the son of Zeus. Something that could be very provoking for the rest of the Greeks.They mustnt have taken him seriously. Why? Because the era of the gods and the heroes was far away to the past.And that's why it was surely difficult to accept someone that said that he was the son of Zeus, and furthermore when he was ruling them against their will.

[Taphoi]

Alexander's family claimed descent from Heracles via the royal family of Argos and Heracles was a son of Zeus. Hence Alexander was a descendant of Zeus as far as his contemporaries were concerned. In Egypt as Pharaoh part of his official titulary was Sa Re or Son of the Sun. The Greeks syncretised Ammon-Re to Zeus, so in this sense Alexander was Son of Zeus. It was not a matter of Alexander spontaneously claiming to be anything. These titles were thrust upon him by others. If he used them, then he may just have been taking a respectful attitude to religious traditions! The Alexander Romance has a story that the five quarters of Alexandria were named Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon after the formula Alexandros Basileus Genos Dios Ektise (polin aeimneston) - Alexander the King and Descendant of Zeus Founded (a city of eternal memory). Most things about Alexandria in the Romance are essentially true, because it was written there.

Best wishes,

Andrew