"Wonders of the Ancient World"... Ignored?

[marcus]

I've barely looked at it since I first wrote it and am somewhat embarrassed having read it today. Can't quite believe I wrote "There is no question" (that Alexander visited the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus). Truly I think he must have done so - and that's probably what I should have said instead!

Hi Amyntoros,

Just reading back through the posts in this thread, and I re-read this.

Why do you think Alexander must have visited the Mausoleum? It was only a tomb, after all, of someone he didn't know. While it was, by all accounts, an amazing building, Alexander was more intent on dislodging the Persians from the citadel and then moving off totake the next city. Therefore, I wonder whether you "think[ing] he must have done so" is falling into the same trap as this whole thread - that as it was (later) declared a "wonder", that it should then have been of the slightest interest to Alexander?

ATB

[rocktupac]

In quick response, I think it's a little hard to compare the two visits: yours versus Alexander's. In his defense, it was a little different situation. Unless you, as conquering king, entered New York, a 'land' you had only heard of in books, rich with legend, and had never before seen pictures of the great monuments there, then and only then do I think you could possibly compare the two trips. More later...

[amyntoros]

I've barely looked at it since I first wrote it and am somewhat embarrassed having read it today. Can't quite believe I wrote "There is no question" (that Alexander visited the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus). Truly I think he must have done so - and that's probably what I should have said instead!

Hi Amyntoros,

Just reading back through the posts in this thread, and I re-read this.

Why do you think Alexander must have visited the Mausoleum? It was only a tomb, after all, of someone he didn't know. While it was, by all accounts, an amazing building, Alexander was more intent on dislodging the Persians from the citadel and then moving off totake the next city. Therefore, I wonder whether you "think[ing] he must have done so" is falling into the same trap as this whole thread - that as it was (later) declared a "wonder", that it should then have been of the slightest interest to Alexander?

ATB

I'll begin with an aside (though still on topic for the thread). It occurred to me while considering the above that Alexander's supposed last plans say that "A tomb for his father Philip was to be constructed to match the greatest of the pyramids of Egypt, buildings which some persons count among the seven greatest works of man." (Didodorus 18.4.5) For me, this suggests that Alexander did indeed see the pyramids. And though I understand what you are saying about the Mausoleum (and by default, the pyramids) being declared a "Wonder" for later generations it doesn't necessarily follow that Alexander wouldn't have been captivated by them simply because they hadn't yet been listed as such. The notes to my Diodorus say that the first surviving list (as we know it) was by Antipater of Sidon:

Cp. Book 1. 63. 2-9. Antipater of Sidon (Pal. Anthol. 9. 58), an epigrammatist of the second century B.C., gives the following as the seven wonders of the world : The walls of Babylon, the statue of Zeus by Phidias, the hanging gardens Babylon, the Colossus of Rhodes, the pyramids of Egypt, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, and the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Other lists combine the walls and the hanging gardens of Babylon, and add the Pharos at Alexandria.

I think that something(s) which so impressed people in the second century B.C. would have done so also in earlier times. And although it's been covered in this thread that Alexander was no ordinary tourist I still believe he could/would have found the time to check out the Mausoleum before "moving off to take the next city." In fact, I'd find it more surprising if he ignored it while he was in the same city! Even in the middle of the worst campaigns the Macedonians still found time for social events. (And then there's that long "diversion" to Siwah.) I mean, how long could a visit to the Mausoleum have taken?

My strongest reason, however, for thinking that Alexander saw the Mausoleum is because of his later plans for Hephaistion's tomb! I'm one of those who believe that there's some confusion in the sources between a tomb and a funeral pyre and that the grand design was for a tomb. And such a tomb was not at all the Macedonian way, which makes me suspect that Alexander had been suitably impressed by the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. There's nothing else that compares at this time in history – even Cyrus' tomb was a simple affair. If Hephaistion's tomb had been completed and survived then, given its description, it would have "outdone" even the Mausoleum. And, given Alexander's seeming devotion to Hephaistion, this could likely have been his intent.

Actually, on thinking about it again, some of the above still applies even if it was a pyre!

All of this is, of course, just my opinion and I should have made this clearer in the article for the site.

Best regards,

[marcus]

I'll begin with an aside (though still on topic for the thread). It occurred to me while considering the above that Alexander's supposed last plans say that "A tomb for his father Philip was to be constructed to match the greatest of the pyramids of Egypt, buildings which some persons count among the seven greatest works of man." (Didodorus 18.4.5) For me, this suggests that Alexander did indeed see the pyramids.

Oh, I think there's no doubt that Alexander must have seen the pyramids - not least because he couldn't have followed the Nile from Memphis to Rhakotis without going past them!

And though I understand what you are saying about the Mausoleum (and by default, the pyramids) being declared a "Wonder" for later generations it doesn't necessarily follow that Alexander wouldn't have been captivated by them simply because they hadn't yet been listed as such.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am pretty sure Alexander saw the mausoleum, and quite possibly he took a trip specially to see it. But I don't think it follows that he *must* have wanted to see it because it was so famous (or whatever).

The notes to my Diodorus say that the first surviving list (as we know it) was by Antipater of Sidon:

Cp. Book 1. 63. 2-9. Antipater of Sidon (Pal. Anthol. 9. 58), an epigrammatist of the second century B.C., gives the following as the seven wonders of the world : The walls of Babylon, the statue of Zeus by Phidias, the hanging gardens Babylon, the Colossus of Rhodes, the pyramids of Egypt, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, and the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Other lists combine the walls and the hanging gardens of Babylon, and add the Pharos at Alexandria.

The thing is, of course, that this list was compiled 2 centuries after Alexander (or 1 1/2 centuries, or whatever). Also, there is still considerable debate and argument over whether the "Hanging Gardens" ever existed - so this presents us with an additional problem vis a vis the list.

I think that something(s) which so impressed people in the second century B.C. would have done so also in earlier times. And although it's been covered in this thread that Alexander was no ordinary tourist I still believe he could/would have found the time to check out the Mausoleum before "moving off to take the next city." In fact, I'd find it more surprising if he ignored it while he was in the same city! Even in the middle of the worst campaigns the Macedonians still found time for social events. (And then there's that long "diversion" to Siwah.) I mean, how long could a visit to the Mausoleum have taken?

Again, not that I don't agree to a large extent. And yes, Alexander was as much a tourist as anything.

HOWEVER ... none of this detracts from the fact that, IF Alexander visited all of the existing-at-the-time wonders, then the extant historians didn't see fit to mention it - which says something about them, or their readership, but tells us nothing of Alexander. IF he DIDN'T visit them, then surely that was because he didn't consider them worth the time ... can't think of any other reason for not visiting them, to be honest! Having said all that ... as there is no mention of his specifically visiting them, then we have no idea whether it's because he didn't or because the historians didn't mention it. So the whole thing's a bit academic. Still ...

1. Statue of Zeus at Olympia - if Alexander ever went to Olympia (which is probable, but far from absolutely certain) then he will have seen it (impossible not to).
2. Temple of Artemis at Ephesus - not built, but Alexander did offer to pay for it. The previous one had been burned down when Alexander was born.
3. Mausoleum of Halicarnassus - no evidence that he saw it, but very likely that he did.
4. Lighthouse at Alexandria - not built.
5. Colossus of Rhodes - not built.
6. Great Pyramid at Giza - almost inconceivable that he didn't see it, especially as the route he took to Lake Mareotis would have taken him right past it.
7. Hanging Gardens of Babylon - if they existed, then Alexander would have seen them, because he couldn't not have seen them. Whether he appreciated them at all is impossible for us even to guess at. However, there is still considerable debate as to whether they existed, owing to the total lack of archaeological evidence ...

ATB

[marcus]

In quick response, I think it's a little hard to compare the two visits: yours versus Alexander's. In his defense, it was a little different situation. Unless you, as conquering king, entered New York, a 'land' you had only heard of in books, rich with legend, and had never before seen pictures of the great monuments there, then and only then do I think you could possibly compare the two trips. More later...

I couldn't disagree more, but I don't have the energy to debate it.

ATB

[ruthaki]

Wasn';t the Temple of Artemis (at Ephesus) the one that had burned down the night Alexander was born? And didn't he later donate money for it's reconstruction when he passed by that way?

As the historians may not have ever seen the Wonders themselves (only heard about them from other travelers) perhaps that's why they failed to mention them in any kind of detail.

As for the Hanging Gardens, hadn't they been there for years and years before Alexander arrived at Babylon? If so, perhaps they weren't so grand then.

[marcus]

Wasn';t the Temple of Artemis (at Ephesus) the one that had burned down the night Alexander was born?

Well, so they said, although it appears fairly conclusive that it wasn't the same night - it just served the propagandists to say that it was.

And didn't he later donate money for it's reconstruction when he passed by that way?

Yes - see my post above.

As the historians may not have ever seen the Wonders themselves (only heard about them from other travelers) perhaps that's why they failed to mention them in any kind of detail.

Difficult to say - which is, I suppose, why we're having this discussion. The fact is, before 323 BC the "Wonders" hadn't been listed, although some of them did exist of course (with the possible exception of the Hanging Gardens). That doesn't mean that they weren't "wonders", as Amyntoros quite rightly pointed out ... but the fact of the matter is that there is no mention in the *extant* sources, which were all written after the official list had been written. Still doesn't mean that Al. *didn't* visit them; but certainly doesn't provide any proof that he did. The best we can say is what I said in a previous post - one assumes he *must* have done (esp. the pyramids), but we cannot assume that he did so because he had any burning desire to do so.

ATB

[Semiramis]

My strongest reason, however, for thinking that Alexander saw the Mausoleum is because of his later plans for Hephaistion's tomb! I'm one of those who believe that there's some confusion in the sources between a tomb and a funeral pyre and that the grand design was for a tomb. And such a tomb was not at all the Macedonian way, which makes me suspect that Alexander had been suitably impressed by the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. There's nothing else that compares at this time in history – even Cyrus' tomb was a simple affair. If Hephaistion's tomb had been completed and survived then, given its description, it would have "outdone" even the Mausoleum. And, given Alexander's seeming devotion to Hephaistion, this could likely have been his intent.

Actually, on thinking about it again, some of the above still applies even if it was a pyre!

All of this is, of course, just my opinion and I should have made this clearer in the article for the site.

Best regards,

Hi Amyntoros,

It's a very interesting idea that the grand plans were for a tomb for Hephaistion and not a pyre that would be burnt. It's the sensible thing to do, but Alexander did like his grand gestures. I can imagine him burning down a really expensive pyre...

Regarding any visit to the mausoleum, Alexander was said to be surprised at how simple Cyrus' tomb was. One could argue that he found it plain compared to the tomb of Mausolus, who beneath Cyrus in stature. As in, Alexander had seen the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. Too much of a stretch?

[marcus]

Regarding any visit to the mausoleum, Alexander was said to be surprised at how simple Cyrus' tomb was. One could argue that he found it plain compared to the tomb of Mausolus, who beneath Cyrus in stature. As in, Alexander had seen the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. Too much of a stretch?

In a word, yes!

Although I wouldn't be at all surprised if Alexander saw the Mausoleum (please note that my objections have been to "must have" - I actually don't doubt that he did), I do think it's a massive leap from a fair certainty that he saw the Mausoleum to his making that comparison with Cyrus' tomb. Not impossible at all, but too big a leap on the evidence we have.

Cyrus had 'created' the Persian empire, and was the Great King. Alexander would have been surprised by the tomb's simplicity anyway, without having to compare it with the hubristic funerary arrangements of a Carian wannabe ...

ATB

[amyntoros]

Although I wouldn't be at all surprised if Alexander saw the Mausoleum (please note that my objections have been to "must have" - I actually don't doubt that he did), I do think it's a massive leap from a fair certainty that he saw the Mausoleum to his making that comparison with Cyrus' tomb. Not impossible at all, but too big a leap on the evidence we have.

Yeah, my original "must have" was a big mistake. I should have stressed that it is only my theory, maybe a la Miss Anne Elk of Monty Python fame? What is it that it is, this theory of mine? Well, this is what it is, my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine … is mine.



Seriously though, I (also) don't doubt that Alexander saw the Mausoleum, or that it would have piqued his interest, especially as it was an incredible monument to a mere mortal. By ancient Greek definition Mausolus was neither Hero nor god, and although it wasn't unusual for Greeks to give cultic honors to the founders of their cities, at this point in time Macedonian tombs were quite unexceptional affairs, even those belonging to kings. So this spectacular tomb had to have been a curiosity - and one that, I believe, would have set Alexander's mind racing. As Jona Lendering says on his Livius page, "Few people have received such an impressive funeral monument." Add to this the fact that, according to everything I have found on the internet, the tomb was right in the middle of the city! At around 147 feet tall it must have towered over the landscape, impossible not to be seen within the city environs. So I feel the question is not so much whether Alexander would have visited it, but whether he would have deliberately avoided it. It's more difficult to conjecture a convincing reason for the latter than the former, IMO.

This being my theory ...


Best regards,

[marcus]

So I feel the question is not so much whether Alexander would have visited it, but whether he would have deliberately avoided it. It's more difficult to conjecture a convincing reason for the latter than the former, IMO.

Oh, now there's a challenge! Let me think about it ...

ATB

[athenas owl]

The sources are so thin, really. We barely know what Alexander did while in Egypt (aside from going to Siwah). Perhaps some lost writings mentioned Alexander's reaction to Giza. "Hey! I want one of those!"

As for the Mausoleum, how could he have NOT seen it? It was built to be seen. Perhaps he didn't find it interesting, but it would be like not seeing the now gone World Trade Center on the NY skyline. Hard to miss.

[artemisia]

As for Halikarnassos
Given the well-known interest of Alexander for artists, I think he wouldn’t miss to see so great artworks of one of his court sculptors, Leochares. And Skopas too probably had worked for Philipp on the Sanctuary of Samothrake.
Remember that Alexander himself approved the sketches / models of sculptures, paintings, coins and important buildings which were to made on his orders. Therefore we can expect him interested in any important artwork.
And after all, Maussolos became the adopted uncle of Alexander - surely Ada will have shown him around in the tomb.

Artemisia

[Efstathios]

It is almost certain that Alexander visited some of the ancient wonders. It is not mentioned in the sources because maybe there wasn't anything interesting to mention during those visits. The sources do not mention a lot of stuff, but that doesn't mean anything. Alexander had an inquiring mind, and besides being a conqueror he was surely interested in seeing things. He saw the tob of Cyrus and he wouldn't have gone to see an ancient wonder that was right where he passed by? He spend a lot of time at Babylon, and he wouldn't have gone to see the hanging gardens? And ok, the garden may have been not so important to him, he could probably see them from his room and that was it. But other wonders, like the pyramids, i think he saw them up close.

[marcus]

As for Halikarnassos
Given the well-known interest of Alexander for artists, I think he wouldn’t miss to see so great artworks of one of his court sculptors, Leochares. And Skopas too probably had worked for Philipp on the Sanctuary of Samothrake.
Remember that Alexander himself approved the sketches / models of sculptures, paintings, coins and important buildings which were to made on his orders. Therefore we can expect him interested in any important artwork.
And after all, Maussolos became the adopted uncle of Alexander - surely Ada will have shown him around in the tomb.

Artemisia

We don't know that Ada was ever in Halicarnassus with him. She had come from Alinda, her only stronghold, and she was entertained in his camp. Once Halicarnassus was taken he spent hardly any time there before moving on. Of course, the balance of probability is that he and Ada were within the city at the same time, as he installed her as satrap. But whether she would have shown him round the tomb ... I don't know.

That's not to say that I don't think he saw it; but despite it being huge, the fact is that Mausolus was not actually a terribly important person, so I don't see that Alexander would have been of the "I must see what Mausolus built" persuasion.

We'll never know, of course.

Was Leochares one of Alexander's court sculptors? I don't recall and can't go check my sources right now.

ATB