pothos.org

Taphoi wrote:… But apart from that, what did Alexander ever do for fusion between the races?

Well, he also gave training bursaries to the sons of his soldiers’ “barbarian” wives and gave monthly issues of provisions to the wives themselves and he recruited a band of 30,000 Persian youths to be trained in Macedonian fighting techniques to form the future core of his army…

amyntoros wrote: Scholary opinion is valid in any debate on Pothos. Any member is welcome to quote or refer to a scholar, whether they agree or disagree with that which they've read. After all, we actively encourage the reading of all manner of books on Alexander and the period. We have reviews of books on the main site and we have always discussed various books and articles on the forum. It would be a bit much for us to talk about books and articles we think our members would appreciate if it isn't credible to include scholarly opinions in a debate.

I completely agree with you, whilst noting that I never said that scholarly opinion isn’t valid. I just said that it shouldn’t override source evidence, when there is no source evidence in its own favour. I have every possible respect for scholarly opinion properly argued from the evidence.

Semiramis wrote:I see where you're coming from Andrew. I guess what I am suggesting is that if there are clear instances of the sources fibbing, then should we be even more willing to question the evidence they give us and the biases they might have?

Sadly, it is my experience that modern sources on Alexander are in general less reliable than the ancient sources, but I do accept that the ancient sources sometimes get it wrong. No, we should not be uncritical, but we should be systematic and scientific in our criticism, which means arguing from evidence rather than opinion.

Semiramis wrote:It's no secret that Ptolemy was using Alexander's name to try and legitimize his royal claims.

A good example, I’m afraid, of where opinion has been allowed to triumph over evidence. The ancient sources do not ascribe this motive to Ptolemy. They specifically ascribe other motives to him in this matter.

Semiramis wrote:When discussing this topic, I feel that we often ignore the fact that it was an absolute necessity for Alexander to placate at least the majority of the newly-unsettled Persian nobility. So, many of the actions that are held up as examples of the "generous conqueror" or "philosophical king" were really a matter of necessity. I just don't see how Alexander could have held on to or governed the empire without the support of a significant proportion of this powerful class.

I do not disagree with you that Alexander’s Policy of Fusion was driven partly by practical motives, although I also believe that it had some philosophical aspects as well. Just because the policy was partly driven by practical motives doesn’t make it any less a policy. Nor does the fact that others did similar things at similar times detract from Alexander’s actions. I think I have shown that in order to believe that there was no such thing as a Policy of Fusion, you have to ignore good quality source evidence for which there is no tangible contradictory evidence, ancient or modern.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:

Taphoi wrote:… But apart from that, what did Alexander ever do for fusion between the races?

Well, he also gave training bursaries to the sons of his soldiers’ “barbarian” wives and gave monthly issues of provisions to the wives themselves and he recruited a band of 30,000 Persian youths to be trained in Macedonian fighting techniques to form the future core of his army…

All for the concord of nations and a brotherhood of conquerors and conquered? I can see you feel a pothos to believe.

Is your method always to present such "evidence" out of its context? The first is clearly related to the "mutiny" at Opis where it is granted (along with a personal gratuity) to those dismissed from service. Their sons - children of the camp make no mistake - were then to be raised as recruits for the army. Recruits who will, not unnaturally, know little other than that camp and the conqueror whose beneficence feeds them. Hardly some altruistic guesture of fusion; rather redolent of utter practicality.

The second relates rather more directly to the disticnt lack of national reinforcements. We have no record of any further national Macedonian phalanx infantry replacements after 330/31 (from memory). Whilst they may have dropped out of the source tradition or, perchance, simply not have been noted, clearly we can't invent such on the basis of the silence of the source material. Accepting the sources as they are and that such dried up after "the battle of mice", an order that these youths be trained in the Macedonian manner sometime between 330-327 (depending upon source) is clealry given in the context of future infantry recruits. Their name - given by Alexander as Arrian relates - says it all: epigoni, "successors" or counter phalanx. These would refill / replace his ageing phalanx. Antipater's embarrassment at the outbreak of the Lamian War is eloquent testimony to the conqueror's practical foresight: plainly the national levy could not spare such troops.

Hi Amyntoros

amyntoros wrote: Oh, (and back to the subject of fusion) I would personally exclude the sacrifice to the Apis Bull in Egypt and the adoption of the Egyptian god, Ammon as examples of fusion, nor would I use them to support my own views. Yes, the worship of Apis would have pleased the Egyptians, but I think that Alexander would have done it regardless. It's an example of his syncretic approach to religion. Syncretism existed well before Alexander, but his (and Ptolemy's) famous examples seem to have played a significant role in the rapid increase of syncretism in the Hellenistic period. Again though, the majority of the evidence points to Greeks welcoming other gods into their religion rather than the other way round.

Best regards,

Alexander's approach in Egypt is sometimes contrasted with that of Xerxes. In her book "The Persians", Maria Brosius mentions an inscription from a relatively recent find. Here, Xerxes proclaims that he has honoured the Apis Bull in the proper way. Having come across this I have lost faith in the popular story of Xerxes slaughtering the Bull.

There's no good reason that I can see to doubt the tablet. It's contemporaneous to the event. Either act - honouring or slaying - would have been done by Xerxes for symbolic and propagandistic value. So, there's no reason for him to do one thing and declare another. It appears Herodotus may have gotten carried away with a bit of war propaganda on this one.

Including aspects of royal clothing. Meyer Reinhold in History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity tells us (Page 18) "If we may trust Xenophon's knowledge of the early institutions of the Persian Empire, it was the 'Median robe' that Cyrus the Great adopted as part of the costume of Persian officialdom".

Fascinating. Did not know this. The Achamenids were always 'King of Persia and Meda' too. Interesting contrast with the 'nomad' Persian parts of the coronation, like drinking sour milk.

Ah, I do that all the time, composing a response and then letting it sit awhile before posting! No worries - you said it so much better anyway.

You're too kind Amyntoros.

Hi Andrew,

Taphoi wrote:

Semiramis wrote:It's no secret that Ptolemy was using Alexander's name to try and legitimize his royal claims.

A good example, I’m afraid, of where opinion has been allowed to triumph over evidence. The ancient sources do not ascribe this motive to Ptolemy. They specifically ascribe other motives to him in this matter.

Apologies. I should provide some evidence. One can take at all those coins Ptolemy minted with images of a deified Alexander and himself as mere satrap. Not as many lonely ones of Ptolemy without the ram-horned one.

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/e ... y_I/t.html

Or perhaps the Alexander coins were simply minted because the Macedonian general was bit of a sentimental sop. Or poor Ptolemy did not feel himself pretty enough to grace too many coins solo?

Then there's his hijacking of Alexander's (undecayed ) corpse. Propaganda coup during the Wars of the Successors? Or secret necrophiliac tendencies?

Paralus wrote:Is your method always to present such "evidence" out of its context? The first is clearly related to the "mutiny" at Opis where it is granted (along with a personal gratuity) to those dismissed from service. Their sons - children of the camp make no mistake - were then to be raised as recruits for the army.

Actually, I was referring to events in India at Diodorus 17.94.4, but it is good that you have remembered Opis as another instance of the same policy.

Semiramis wrote:Apologies. I should provide some evidence. One can take at all those coins Ptolemy minted with images of a deified Alexander and himself as mere satrap. Not as many lonely ones of Ptolemy without the ram-horned one...
Then there's his hijacking of Alexander's (undecayed ) corpse. Propaganda coup during the Wars of the Successors? Or secret necrophiliac tendencies?

Ptolemy's coins as satrap of Egypt bore Alexander's deified image and the legend "Of Alexander" because at the time it was standard practice to put a god's image on coins rather than a ruler's and secondly because Ptolemy regarded Alexander IV to be the king. They actually show that Ptolemy long spurned the diadem in his own right. He even specifically refused the Regency of the Empire. The coins assert that Ptolemy was a loyal vassal of Alexander's dynasty.
The ancient sources (Curtius, Diodorus, Justin...) say that it was Alexander who ordered the transfer of his body to Egypt. The Metz Epitome states that Alexander asked Ptolemy to carry his body to Egypt. Lucian in his Dialogues of the Dead says that Alexander extracted a promise from Ptolemy that he would take his body to Egypt. The sources say that Perdiccas decided to send the body to Macedon instead. The sources say that Ptolemy was especially loyal to Alexander, because Alexander was his half-brother and Alexander had saved his life in India. The message of the sources is therefore that Ptolemy took Alexander's body to Egypt to keep his promise to his dead king and brother. To my knowledge there is nothing in any ancient source to contradict any of this and nothing that says that Ptolemy did it to bolster his rule in Egypt. Yet you and many others have been taught as truth by modern writers that Ptolemy acted out of narrow self-interest. It would be really interesting if someone expert on the modern sources like Amyntoros could tell us just where the modern view comes from.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Taphoi wrote:The ancient sources (Curtius, Diodorus, Justin...) say that it was Alexander who ordered the transfer of his body to Egypt. The Metz Epitome states that Alexander asked Ptolemy to carry his body to Egypt. Lucian in his Dialogues of the Dead says that Alexander extracted a promise from Ptolemy that he would take his body to Egypt.

So, in fact, some of the ancient sources (i.e. the so-called Vulgate sources) say that it was Alexander who ordered the transfer of his body to Egypt - and although it is difficult to be sure about Metz, it's not really appropriate to use Lucian as a reliable source in his own right in this case. And if those sources were all following Cleitarchus of Alexandria, there might well be a propaganda point being made there; so I think we should treat the statement with just a smidgeon of scepticism, shouldn't we, considering not all the other ancient sources agree?

ATB

marcus wrote:So, in fact, some of the ancient sources (i.e. the so-called Vulgate sources) say that it was Alexander who ordered the transfer of his body to Egypt - and although it is difficult to be sure about Metz, it's not really appropriate to use Lucian as a reliable source in his own right in this case. And if those sources were all following Cleitarchus of Alexandria, there might well be a propaganda point being made there; so I think we should treat the statement with just a smidgeon of scepticism, shouldn't we, considering not all the other ancient sources agree?

I am not against scepticism. I do not assert that the sources necessarily represent the exact truth. I am against believing the exact opposite without any evidence to back you up and in the face of counter-evidence in the ancient sources. The other ancient sources do not disagree either. They are simply silent on the matter of Ptolemy's motives.

Best wishes,

Andrew
P.S. You would be quite wrong to believe that Lucian is not a good ancient source on Alexander - many of his writings reflect a deep knowledge about Alexander's career and he is a unique source on some important and highly credible points.

Taphoi wrote:

Paralus wrote:Is your method always to present such "evidence" out of its context? The first is clearly related to the "mutiny" at Opis where it is granted (along with a personal gratuity) to those dismissed from service. Their sons - children of the camp make no mistake - were then to be raised as recruits for the army.

Actually, I was referring to events in India at Diodorus 17.94.4, but it is good that you have remembered Opis as another instance of the same policy.

That is rather misleading. You were, actually, referring to a conflation of both as your use of "training bursaries to the sons of his soldiers’ “barbarian” wives" clearly belies. "Training bursaries" are not mentioned in Diod.17.94 and nor are "barbarian wives". They are, in fact, mentioned at 110.3 in connection with the Opis rebellion:

Since there were by now sons of the Macedonians born of captive women, he determined the exact number of these. There were about ten thousand, and he set aside for them revenues sufficient to provide them with an upbringing proper for freeborn children…

I also find your continued avoidance of the context of the evidence you adduce disturbing. It resembles nothing so much as a politician in the media spotlight. One is left to conclude that it is deliberate.

The announcement by Alexander in India and reported by Diodorus is nothing more than a bribe. Diodorus, in fact, makes this absolutely plain in his introduction to Alexander’s cajoling of the soldiers’ wives. That which followed at Opis was simply a "targetted" reiteration of the bribe delivered in the context of another "revolt". If we provide the context of the selectively referred to 17.94.4 this becomes clear:

Diod.17.94:

1-3: Alexander observed that his soldiers were exhausted with their constant campaigns. They had spent almost eight years among toils and dangers, and it was necessary to raise their spirits by an effective appeal if they were to undertake the expedition against the Gandaridae. Here had been many losses among the soldiers, and no relief from fighting was in sight. The hooves of the horses had been worn thin by steady marching. The arms and armour were wearing out, and Greek clothing was quite gone. They had to clothe themselves in foreign materials, recutting the garments of the Indians. This was the season also, as luck would have it, of the heavy rains. These had been going on for seventy days, to the accompaniment of continuous thunder and lightning. All this he accounted adverse to his project, and he saw only one hope of gaining his wish, if he might gain the soldiers' great goodwill through gratitude.

As can clearly be seen, the source material relates that the army was not interested in yet another adventure in conquering and Alexander, just as clearly, perceived that it was “adverse to his project”. Diodorus then relates:

4: Accordingly he allowed them to ravage the enemy's country, which was full of every good thing. During these days when the army was busy foraging, he called together the wives of the soldiers and their children; to the wives he undertook to give a monthly ration, to the children he distributed a service bonus in proportion to the military records of their fathers.

Alexander bribes the army – pure and simple – and then sets about bribing the army wives whilst those soldiers are away. The result was not as he planned:

5: When the soldiers returned laden with wealth from their expedition, he brought them together to a meeting. He delivered a carefully prepared speech about the expedition against the Gandaridae but the Macedonians did not accept it, and he gave up the undertaking.

Holding up the single line (Diodorus 17.94.4) out of any context gives an utterly false impression as can readily be seen when its context is included. That context clearly indicates there is nothing in 94.4 that relates to anything remotely approaching a “policy fusion”. It relates, purely and simply, to the conqueror’s flouted ambitions for yet more conquest and his bribery to persuade his army to join him.

Taphoi wrote:Ptolemy's coins as satrap of Egypt bore Alexander's deified image and the legend "Of Alexander" because at the time it was standard practice to put a god's image on coins rather than a ruler's and secondly because Ptolemy regarded Alexander IV to be the king. They actually show that Ptolemy long spurned the diadem in his own right. He even specifically refused the Regency of the Empire. The coins assert that Ptolemy was a loyal vassal of Alexander's dynasty.

I always imagined that Ptolemy would have participated in the Wars of the Diadochi with the intention of ultimately holding on to power in Egypt (and more if he could manage it). Otherwise he could have just retired to some Indian fishing village and spared the lives of all those men. Perhaps periodically corresponding with his half-nephew Alexander IV for a bit of excitement...

Taphoi wrote:The ancient sources (Curtius, Diodorus, Justin...) say that it was Alexander who ordered the transfer of his body to Egypt. The Metz Epitome states that Alexander asked Ptolemy to carry his body to Egypt. Lucian in his Dialogues of the Dead says that Alexander extracted a promise from Ptolemy that he would take his body to Egypt. The sources say that Perdiccas decided to send the body to Macedon instead. The sources say that Ptolemy was especially loyal to Alexander, because Alexander was his half-brother and Alexander had saved his life in India. The message of the sources is therefore that Ptolemy took Alexander's body to Egypt to keep his promise to his dead king and brother. To my knowledge there is nothing in any ancient source to contradict any of this and nothing that says that Ptolemy did it to bolster his rule in Egypt.

Every dynasty I have studied disseminated their claim to authority to bolster it's rule. Repeated reminders of divine or royal ancestry, ties to religion, ceremonies to remind the population of previous symbols of authority, minting coins etc. Why would the Ptolemaic Dynasty have been any different? If the Sassanids could use their alleged Achaemenid ancestry to strengthen their claim (after a gap of centuries), why couldn't Ptolemy use his ties to Alexander?

Do you believe the sources that Ptolemy was the half-brother of Alexander? Could the sources have been wrong on that? If it isn't true, what could give rise to such a story? Could some legitimizing propaganda have been at play? If so, can you be sure it was restricted to influencing just that part of the narrative?

Yet you and many others have been taught as truth by modern writers that Ptolemy acted out of narrow self-interest. It would be really interesting if someone expert on the modern sources like Amyntoros could tell us just where the modern view comes from.
Best wishes,
Andrew

What? Narrow self-interest? In a King? A general? A professional warrior? How would a man who claimed to kill two million in conquest conceive of such a thing? One who is no less than the half-brother of Alexander himself! Pass the smelling salt.

For me it's a matter of common sense that sources have their biases, warriors might exaggerate their prowess, kings might aggrandize themselves or propaganda might be disseminated during conflicts. I like to think I had this much sense before I picked up my first Alexander-related book.

Like others, I too would like to stress that I feel it's absolutely worthwhile to read the (good) modern authors on the topic. Just because someone (say Paralus for example) possesses an impressive level of familiarity with the body of work on this time period, does not mean he is incapable of drawing his own conclusions or being critical of modern authors - something amply demonstrated in pothos. It's the viewpoint itself that should be addressed in the discussion. It seems a bit below the belt to state unsubstantiated assumptions about the poster as part of the reason to dismiss their point. I think you will find that approach will usually have a negative impact on the tone of the discussion as well.

Taphoi wrote:

marcus wrote:So, in fact, some of the ancient sources (i.e. the so-called Vulgate sources) say that it was Alexander who ordered the transfer of his body to Egypt - and although it is difficult to be sure about Metz, it's not really appropriate to use Lucian as a reliable source in his own right in this case. And if those sources were all following Cleitarchus of Alexandria, there might well be a propaganda point being made there; so I think we should treat the statement with just a smidgeon of scepticism, shouldn't we, considering not all the other ancient sources agree?

I am not against scepticism. I do not assert that the sources necessarily represent the exact truth. I am against believing the exact opposite without any evidence to back you up and in the face of counter-evidence in the ancient sources. The other ancient sources do not disagree either. They are simply silent on the matter of Ptolemy's motives.

Best wishes,

Andrew
P.S. You would be quite wrong to believe that Lucian is not a good ancient source on Alexander - many of his writings reflect a deep knowledge about Alexander's career and he is a unique source on some important and highly credible points.

Lucian, however, was an experienced rhetorician who turned to satire and openly expressed that "his mission in life was not to reform society nor to chastise it, but simply to amuse it". (Have lost the reference but will travel to the library to find it if asked.) Yes, he apparently had a deep knowledge about Alexander's career, but many of his works, especially (and obviously) The Dialogues of the Dead are fictionalized events. When a writer puts a historical figure in a fictional situation there will likely be parts based entirely on fact, parts which are creative or imaginary, and in certain situations there will be parts which are cherry-picked from conflicting sources and used to good effect. For example, Lucian, also in his Dialogues of the Dead has Philip accusing Alexander of having locked up educated men along with lions, a probable reference to Lysimachus of which even Curtius is skeptical. (Curtius 8.1.17) "I am inclined to think that it was the event I have described above that gave rise to the widespread but unsubstantiated story that Lysimachus was deliberately exposed to a lion by the king." Then there's the line of Alexander's that the "barbarians were terrified of me, and nobody resisted me any more; they thought they were fighting against a god, so that I conquered them the more easily." Now if that were purported historical fact from any other writer than Lucian my immediate response would be “Huh?”

It's the same with Shakespeare whose intent was not to lecture in history but to entertain – to devastating effect in some instances such as his portrayal of the Plantagenet Richard III which was written for a Tudor queen and audience. To this day there are people who still think that Richard was as damnable as portrayed. A more recent example is Oliver Stone’s Alexander, a veritable admixture of history and fiction, and then there's the wonderful Mary Renault. When anyone inserts fiction into their art we know we can't treat any or every part as factual unless it can be confirmed in trusted sources. In the case under debate, as Marcus said, "… some of the ancient sources (i.e. the so-called Vulgate sources) say that it was Alexander who ordered the transfer of his body to Egypt." Because other sources are silent on the issue it doesn't necessarily mean it was true. You've said yourself that there are instances where unchallenged statements in the sources can be refuted by science. It's difficult for me to believe that every other unchallenged statement is the unquestionable truth. That's why I/you/we (and the academic world) are always delving so deeply into the sources, studying them and the authors and asking questions, etc. Unfortunately, we've lost the other books of Arrian who might have been able to shed some light on the issue. This is a situation where counter-evidence may well have existed. Personally, I find it a little too coincidental that Perdiccas, the ultimate power seeker, should have appointed Ptolemy as governor of Egypt if Alexander had already requested that Ptolemy take his body there. And even if Ptolemy told no one of Alexander's supposed words, the coincidence is still huge.

Best regards,

Taphoi wrote:P.S. You would be quite wrong to believe that Lucian is not a good ancient source on Alexander - many of his writings reflect a deep knowledge about Alexander's career and he is a unique source on some important and highly credible points.

Yes, but the motivations of a writer such as Lucian are not those of a historian (good, bad or indifferent). Therefore I would be reluctant to accept him as a credible source without corroborating evidence. And, before you say it, yes I am aware that what he says is corroborated by the other sources you cited; but I would not accept him as a source in his own right without corroboration, which is the point I was making (but I do accept that I didn't exactly put it that way).

Er ... I dashed this off and then read Amyntoros' post above - she puts it better than I in more words, so just take this as my short version of what Amyntoros said ...

ATB

Paralus wrote:That is rather misleading. You were, actually, referring to a conflation of both as your use of "training bursaries to the sons of his soldiers’ “barbarian” wives" clearly belies. "Training bursaries" are not mentioned in Diod.17.94 and nor are "barbarian wives". They are, in fact, mentioned at 110.3 in connection with the Opis rebellion…

No. The actual Greek at Diodorus 17.94.4 appears to mean “cadet bursary” just as in the case of the mention of the same at Opis. The translator may not have had the Opis example in mind, so gave a rather literal translation of words that were actually technical terminology.

Semiramis wrote:Do you believe the sources that Ptolemy was the half-brother of Alexander?

I think you need to have a look at the “Ptolemy and Alexander Brothers?” thread, which I think may be the most viewed thread on the Pothos forum.

http://www.pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... 47&start=0

Semiramis wrote:Like others, I too would like to stress that I feel it's absolutely worthwhile to read the (good) modern authors on the topic.

Like Semiramis, I too would like to stress that I feel it's absolutely worthwhile to read the (good) modern authors on all matters concerning Alexander, whilst noting that I have not said anything to the contrary.

amyntoros wrote:Unfortunately, we've lost the other books of Arrian who might have been able to shed some light on the issue. This is a situation where counter-evidence may well have existed…

But don’t you feel that you’re edging a bit close to an argument from silence here, Amyntoros? Anyway, I think you prompt me to reiterate my challenge for anyone to find any ancient source evidence to contradict the copious source evidence that:

1) Ptolemy and Alexander were brothers
2) Alexander had a Policy of Fusion
3) Ptolemy took Alexander’s body to Egypt, because Alexander had asked and Ptolemy had promised

marcus wrote:Therefore I would be reluctant to accept [Lucian] as a credible source without corroborating evidence.

Actually, I don't think I've asked you to "accept" Lucian. I would only presume to make the much tinier request that Pothosians acknowledge the existence of him as a source on this matter, when discussing it, rather than stating contrary modern opinions as fact. I would, however, note that he is essentially corroborated on this matter by the Metz Epitome, which specifically states that Alexander assigned the task of taking his body to Egypt to Ptolemy.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:Actually, I don't think I've asked you to "accept" Lucian.

Actually, Andrew, considering

23 Jun 2010 07:11 pm
Lucian in his Dialogues of the Dead says that Alexander extracted a promise from Ptolemy that he would take his body to Egypt.

and

23 Jun 2010 09:51 pm
P.S. You would be quite wrong to believe that Lucian is not a good ancient source on Alexander - many of his writings reflect a deep knowledge about Alexander's career and he is a unique source on some important and highly credible points.

and

I would only presume to make the much tinier request that Pothosians acknowledge the existence of him as a source on this matter, when discussing it, rather than stating contrary modern opinions as fact

and

I would, however, note that he is essentially corroborated on this matter by the Metz Epitome, which specifically states that Alexander assigned the task of taking his body to Egypt to Ptolemy

that is exactly what you have done. Otherwise, why bring him into it at all?

ATB

Taphoi wrote:

amyntoros wrote:Unfortunately, we've lost the other books of Arrian who might have been able to shed some light on the issue. This is a situation where counter-evidence may well have existed…

But don’t you feel that you’re edging a bit close to an argument from silence here, Amyntoros? Anyway, I think you prompt me to reiterate my challenge for anyone to find any ancient source evidence to contradict the copious source evidence that:

1) Ptolemy and Alexander were brothers
2) Alexander had a Policy of Fusion
3) Ptolemy took Alexander’s body to Egypt, because Alexander had asked and Ptolemy had promised

No, because in this instance I wasn't trying to reason about the silence of others, but simply mentioning that we don't have Arrian's input on this. And the whole "argument from silence" debate is a case of been there, done that. It's on the Ptolemy and Alexander Brothers thread which you linked to (and which I was reading last night because some of the points we're currently discussing seemed awfully familiar). I've bumped it to the top of the forum now so members don't have to link to it or search for it. And I just spent an hour editing my posts by cleaning up the squiggly bits which were all over the place. If anyone wonders why they appear in old posts of mine - or in the posts of anyone else - it's because I used to compose in Word and then copy-and-paste to the forum. Word doesn't have a typeface with straight apostrophes and for some reason the curly ones (and the hyphens) change to those strange three digit "codes" as the posts get older.)

Taphoi wrote:Anyway, I think you prompt me to reiterate my challenge for anyone to find any ancient source evidence to contradict the copious source evidence that:

1) Ptolemy and Alexander were brothers
2) Alexander had a Policy of Fusion
3) Ptolemy took Alexander’s body to Egypt, because Alexander had asked and Ptolemy had promised

Personally won't taking up such a challenge Andrew, mostly because, as I have debated seemingly ad infinitum on this thread and others, I don't believe that the ancient source evidence you espouse actually holds up as "evidence", nor is it "copious". All points in your challenge are debatable. All are questionable. All, in my opinion anyway, are fun to discuss. I enjoy active discussion and am not really interested in participating in what feels to me like a curious card game with the sources. For some reason I keep thinking of Clue, as in "I say it's Ptolemy, as Alexander's brother, in Alexandria, with a secret promise." It isn't simply a matter of someone else coming up with different cards or opening up the envelope and waving the cards inside whilst proclaiming "I won". Debate doesn't work that way, at least not for me.

Best regards,

marcus wrote:

Taphoi wrote:Actually, I don't think I've asked you to "accept" Lucian.

Actually, Andrew, that is exactly what you have done… Otherwise, why bring him into it at all?

It is a small point Marcus, but you have essentially put the word “accept” into my mouth, when I did not actually use it and it is not the word that I would have chosen to use myself in this particular context. For the record, I would ask you to acknowledge the source evidence, but not necessarily to accept it.

amyntoros wrote: Personally, I find it a little too coincidental that Perdiccas, the ultimate power seeker, should have appointed Ptolemy as governor of Egypt if Alexander had already requested that Ptolemy take his body there. And even if Ptolemy told no one of Alexander's supposed words, the coincidence is still huge.

This point is well made, so it deserves a response. It is the logic of the source evidence that Ptolemy was a loyal comrade and distraught brother of the dead Alexander, who bargained with Perdiccas to secure Egypt just because it was where Alexander had asked for his body to be sent. The evidence of Diodorus 18.3.5 suggests that it was the intention of the commanders to send the corpse to Egypt at the time of the First Division of the Satrapies and that Perdiccas only later changed his mind. It would indeed have been a strange coincidence if Perdiccas had arbitrarily assigned Egypt to Ptolemy when it was already the proclaimed destination of the corpse!

amyntoros wrote:Then there's the line of Alexander's that the "barbarians were terrified of me, and nobody resisted me any more; they thought they were fighting against a god, so that I conquered them the more easily." Now if that were purported historical fact from any other writer than Lucian my immediate response would be “Huh?”

Bur it is “purported historical fact” from Curtius:

Alexander the Great said and Curtius 8.8.15 wrote: As for Hermolaus’ assertion that I should spurn Zeus, whose own oracle acknowledged me, that almost merited mirth. Is it even in my power to determine what deities ordain? Zeus presented me with the sobriquet of son. Nor was accepting it at odds with the activities in which we are engaged. Would that the Indians should believe me to be a god, for warfaring feeds on fame and often even a false faith has gained the tribute of truth.

Best wishes,

Andrew