Alexander's remains

[agesilaos]

It is very difficult to make authoritative statements about the aspirations of anyone, let alone someone that died 2300 years ago. Ptolemy’s reasons for not bothering with the ‘guardianship’ are summed up nicely in that word ‘symbol’, Ptolemy dealt with Realpolitik; accepting the epimeliteia would have meant surrendering his powerbase in Egypt, which just proved its defensive strength, for an uncertain authority in Macedonia where he had no base yet potential rivals did. If anything his clinging to Egypt betrays his greater ambitions, the turtle was not going to relinquish his shell. Alexander’s corpse did attract power, in the form of tourist tetradrachms, Hellenic manpower and religio-political influence over the native population to whom he could demonstrate his concern over his pharaonic predecessor’s burial, as important to someone intent upon establishing Egypt as Festung Ptolmaika.

Lucian’s post factum imaginings are hardly evidence of anything, one may as well try to establish British wartime policy based on ‘Allo, Allo’, albeit that Lucian is more subtle and much funnier. He knew Alexander was a god in Alexandria and that Ptolemy had taken him there, he may have been familiar with the Romance but he has not researched ‘Dialogues of the Dead’ to ensure historical accuracy.

It is beyond contentious to blithely state that Ptolemy was Alexander’s half-brother, this has been discussed here elsewhere and given that all the evidence is late it is unlikely to be true.

What are these inscriptions calling Alexander Dios? Dios is Zeus, theos is the Greek for god in koine and Attic.

As usual the evidence is far from clear but that Ptolemy was a consummate politician and ready propagandist seems clear from his actions upon his motivations, hopes and loves we can only speculate, and that does make you a romanticist, it does not invalidate the conclusion per se but it is not based on evidence only one of many possible interpretations of it.

[amyntoros]

Lucian’s post factum imaginings are hardly evidence of anything, one may as well try to establish British wartime policy based on ‘Allo, Allo’, albeit that Lucian is more subtle and much funnier. He knew Alexander was a god in Alexandria and that Ptolemy had taken him there, he may have been familiar with the Romance but he has not researched ‘Dialogues of the Dead’ to ensure historical accuracy.

Absolutely agree. I was going to say the much the same in that one may as well quote the imagined conversations in Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar as historical fact.

It is beyond contentious to blithely state that Ptolemy was Alexander’s half-brother, this has been discussed here elsewhere and given that all the evidence is late it is unlikely to be true.

Yes, again. In fact, the thread Ptolemy & Alexander Brothers??? has a total of 124 posts!

The truth is far more human and is the only truth that fits the facts: Lucian is precisely correct in saying that Alexander wanted to be taken to Egypt/Ammon in order to become a god and Ptolemy, his loving half-brother, was determined to make his last wish come true. It is clear from Diodorus that Ptolemy originally envisaged a tomb at Siwa, but abandoned the idea in favour of Memphis. In fact the location within Egypt was immaterial, since it was the apotheosis that mattered to Alexander. Alexander was always centrally motivated by his emulation of his ancestor Achilles, who became deified after his death - indeed he is called dios Achilleus (divine Achilles) by Homer. Similarly Alexander becomes dios Alexandros in inscriptions shortly after his death. In Egypt, Ptolemy appointed the first high priest of Alexander and gave Alexander the rams horns of Ammon on his early coinage. I am no romantic. I will tell you that Cleopatra VII was motivated by politics rather than love. But the evidence makes it clear that Ptolemy Soter was motivated by love for his dead brother rather than by politics. He was the true Philadelphus in fact.

Interesting new points in a longstanding argument. I will counter by saying that if Achilles received divinity in the Greek world and amongst the Greek gods, then why would Alexander have needed to have his body removed to Egypt in order to become a god, if that is what he desired? Realistically, on his deathbed Alexander had no idea what Ptolemy was to achieve later in Egypt, so why, at that time, would Alexander have wanted/needed to become a god amongst the Egyptians only? Yes, Egyptian Ammon was known and worshipped by the Greeks (and equated with Zeus), mostly because of the fame of the oracle at Siwah, but the apotheosized Pharoahs certainly were not. With your argument you are dismissing Alexander's lifetime devotion to his own people and his own religious beliefs and crediting him with a deathbed conversion. I've yet to understand why.

Also, the supposed request for his body to be taken to Ammon is ambiguous. When we rule out Lucian and the Romance (which we should do, IMO) we're left with historical records which do not specify a place, only "to Ammon". Now, I can see Alexander wanting to be buried in or near a temple of Ammon if he truly believed he had both a natural father and a godly one. But unless his request consisted of the last words spoken before his death rattle, then why no mention of a place? There was even a temple of Ammon in Macedonia so those who wanted Alexander's body to be taken back home could have argued that they too were fulfilling Alexander's last wishes.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

Lucian’s post factum imaginings are hardly evidence of anything, one may as well try to establish British wartime policy based on ‘Allo, Allo’, albeit that Lucian is more subtle and much funnier. He knew Alexander was a god in Alexandria and that Ptolemy had taken him there, he may have been familiar with the Romance but he has not researched ‘Dialogues of the Dead’ to ensure historical accuracy.

Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead are political satires. Just like our modern political satires, they often tell the truth more plainly than news reports and "straight" histories. Lucian's source(s) for his material on Alexander is a very interesting question. There are many echoes of Cleitarchus, but this may be because he was using Onesicritus, who was one of Cleitarchus' most important sources. Lucian quotes from a personal conversation between Onesicritus and Alexander in his essay on How to Write History and his dialogue between Alexander and Diogenes of Sinope is exactly the sort of thing that might have sourced its facts from Onesicritus, who was a pupil of Diogenes. Lucian also cites the History of Alexander by Onesicritus in his Macrobius, so he had definitely read it. Therefore it is fairly likely that Lucian is reflecting what Onesicritus had written, which should very much be respected as primary evidence from Alexander's chief pilot.

What are these inscriptions calling Alexander Dios? Dios is Zeus, theos is the Greek for god in koine and Attic.

He has the epithet dios in the first section of block a in an inscription found at Delphi recording honours for Archon of Pella; this section should be dated to (shortly) after Archon’s death in 321BC according to Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323BC by PJ Rhodes & Robin Osbourne, Inscription 92, pp.466-470.

Interesting new points in a longstanding argument. I will counter by saying that if Achilles received divinity in the Greek world and amongst the Greek gods, then why would Alexander have needed to have his body removed to Egypt in order to become a god, if that is what he desired? Realistically, on his deathbed Alexander had no idea what Ptolemy was to achieve later in Egypt, so why, at that time, would Alexander have wanted/needed to become a god amongst the Egyptians only? Yes, Egyptian Ammon was known and worshipped by the Greeks (and equated with Zeus), mostly because of the fame of the oracle at Siwah, but the apotheosized Pharoahs certainly were not. With your argument you are dismissing Alexander's lifetime devotion to his own people and his own religious beliefs and crediting him with a deathbed conversion. I've yet to understand why.

In Egypt, Alexander was automatically a god. There was an ancient tradition of deifying pharaohs and Alexander had already been acknowledged as such by the local priests, who were grateful that the new ruler respected their religious practices and had rid them of the hated Persians. Alexander could not be sure of divinisation at the hands of the Macedonians: Curtius 10.5.11 says that the troops had actually refused him divine honours. One of the revisions to modern thinking that is required by the facts is the view that Ptolemy got assigned Egypt and then decided to take Alexander there. What actually happened according to the sources (admittedly the less frequently cited ones) is that Alexander asked Ptolemy to take his body to Egypt and Ptolemy consequently demanded Egypt in the First Division of the Satrapies. The idea that it was the other way round makes no sense whatsoever. The big project for Ptolemy at the time was Alexander's divinisation - not the foundation of the Ptolemaic dynasty. A decade or two later and I am happy to concede that Ptolemy started to get interested in the Dynasty project, but it is an anachronism in the 320's.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

In Egypt, Alexander was automatically a god. There was an ancient tradition of deifying pharaohs and Alexander had already been acknowledged as such by the local priests, who were grateful that the new ruler respected their religious practices and had rid them of the hated Persians. Alexander could not be sure of divinisation at the hands of the Macedonians: Curtius 10.5.11 says that the troops had actually refused him divine honours. One of the revisions to modern thinking that is required by the facts is the view that Ptolemy got assigned Egypt and then decided to take Alexander there. What actually happened according to the sources (admittedly the less frequently cited ones) is that Alexander asked Ptolemy to take his body to Egypt and Ptolemy consequently demanded Egypt in the First Division of the Satrapies. The idea that it was the other way round makes no sense whatsoever. The big project for Ptolemy at the time was Alexander's divinisation - not the foundation of the Ptolemaic dynasty. A decade or two later and I am happy to concede that Ptolemy started to get interested in the Dynasty project, but it is an anachronism in the 320's.

Andrew, there are times when you leave me utterly incredulous, and this is one. You've reiterated my comment about deifying pharaohs without actually answering the point I was making - if Alexander thought the only way that he could be guaranteed divine honors was under the Egyptian religion then he would have had to reject his own beliefs in order to accept theirs. (This would also require him to believe that all other pharaohs before him were also gods.) And if he doubted that the Macedonians might declare him a god, what about Ptolemy? If Ptolemy was so absolutely devoted to Alexander and wanted nothing more than to satisfy Alexander's dying wishes, and (this is important) Alexander's actual and only desire was to be made a god, then why not simply ask Ptolemy to declare him a god rather than the more obscure, "take me to Ammon's temple"? Ptolemy could have done that wherever he was, could have seized or been rewarded with any portion of the empire and built a Greek temple to the 'god' Alexander. According to your argument, all Ptolemy's actions were based on his love for Alexander so you must have no doubt that he would have built such a temple. And it would/could have been built in accordance with the religious beliefs of both Alexander and Ptolemy! You might note than when the early Ptolemies started flirting with their own apotheosis it was the Greek gods with which their names (and their wives' names) were coupled, not the gods of the Egyptians.


Also, you've said above, "One of the revisions to modern thinking that is required by the facts..." and then continued by stating the facts as you see them. They're not facts, Andrew. You've merely reiterated your own conclusion based on your own hypothesis - the very thing that is under discussion here!

Best regards,

[chris_taylor]

What actually happened according to the sources (admittedly the less frequently cited ones) is that Alexander asked Ptolemy to take his body to Egypt

Alexander may or may not have asked Ptolemy to take his body to Egypt. It's irrelevant. What matters is that once in Egypt, Ptolemy didn't cremate him.

We know Alexander's views on the proper funeral rites for a man who was loved, honoured and to be worshipped as a God. He demonstrated them to the world: he burnt Hephaistion's body on the largest funeral pyre in history.

Anyone who denied Alexander the honour he gave to Hephaistion, kept his corpse for a reason.

Chris.

[Alexias]

Isn't all of this a bit specious? Alexander couldn't speak before his death and the last thing the Macedonians would have tried to get out of him was where he wanted to be buried. They would have been more interested in the question that does appear to have been asked of him - who was his successor?

Alexander, and the other Macedonians, would have assumed that he would have been given the sort of funeral that he had just given Hephaestion and that he had given Philip. He would have been cremated and then his remains interred in a tomb. This would have been the job of the next king of Macedon to pay for it and legitimise his succession. Alexander's body was on the way back to Aegae to be buried in this manner when it was hijacked by Ptolemy.

Ptolemy, like all the others, wanted to be King of Macedon and this was his declaration of intent. My knowledge of the wars of the successors is a little sketchy, but I believe he tried to marry Cleopatra, Alexander's sister and continually tried to get a foothold in Aegean affairs. If he had intended to remain solely in Egypt, he would have given Alexander's body a funeral and a tomb in Memphis, the city to which he took it. IMO, Ptolemy kept Alexander's body so that he could take it back to MAcedon and give it a world-class funeral as the next King of Macedon.

Because that ambition was not fulfilled, Alexander never got a funeral, and it was left to later generations to build him a tomb in Alexandria where it was more accessible to Greek tourists than Memphis. As far as I am aware, none of the Ptolemies converted to the Egyptian religion nor did they show any interest in Siwah, especially not in taking a valuable asset into the middle of the desert and dumping it where anyone could have stolen it and they couldn't have shown it off. Pragmatism, not romance, reigned.

[agesilaos]

δῖος , δῖα^ (Hom., v. infr.), δῖον, fem. δία_ in E.Rh.226 (lyr.), IT404 (lyr.) (
A. “δίη” Hes.Th.260 codd.); fem. “δῖος” E.Ba.599 (anap.):—in Ep., heavenly, “δ. γένος” Il.9.538, etc., used by Hom.,
1. of goddesses, “δῖα θεά” 10.290; more freq. δῖα θεάων, with superl. force, 18.388, 19.6, etc.; “δαίμονα δῖον” Hes.Th.991.
2. of illustrious men or women, noble, Il.2.221, etc.; δῖα γυναικῶν noblest of women, Od.4.305; excellent, “δ. ὑφορβός” 16.20, al.
3. of nations, etc., “δῖοι Ἀχαιοί” Il. 5.451; “δ. Πελασγοί” Od.19.177; “δ. ἑταῖροι” Il.5.692; of cities, as Elis, 2.615; Lacedaemon, Od.3.326.
4. of a noble horse, Il.8.185, 23.346.
5. of things, esp. of the powers of nature, divine, awful, marvellous, αἰθέρος ἐκ δίης, εἰς ἅλα δῖαν, χθὼν δῖα, Il.16.365, 1.141, 14.347, cf. Emp.109.2; “δῖον πῦρ” E.Alc.5, etc.; “δῖα Χάρυβδις” Od.12.104.
II. first in Trag. as Adj. of “Ζεύς, Δ. βούλευμα” A.Pr.619; Δ. ὄμμα, στόμα, ib.654, 1033, etc. (For d[icaron]v-[icaron]yos, cf. Skt. div-yá-'heavenly' (freq. trisyll.), but fem. δῖα for div-ya.


So ‘dios’ is directly analogous to the Latin ‘divus’ which does not mean God but possessed of a lesser form of divinity, our ‘divine’ does not really cover it as our monotheist mythologies no longer recognise a hierarchy of Heaven, angels not withstanding.

Achilleus was never made a god, he remained a hero; only Herakles and Dionysos were promoted that high, though later Alexander and even Demetrios seem to have gained that status. In 321 there was no established cult so the usage is, as in Homer’s of Achilleus which is normally rendered as ‘Noble’ or some such, 2 above.

[agesilaos]

Here are the Alexander dialogues:

XII
Alexander. Hannibal. Minos. Scipio

Alex. Libyan, I claim precedence of you. I am the better man.

Han. Pardon me.

Alex. Then let Minos decide.

Mi. Who are you both?

Alex. This is Hannibal, the Carthaginian: I am Alexander, the son of Philip.

Mi. Bless me, a distinguished pair! And what is the quarrel about?

Alex. It is a question of precedence. He says he is the better general: and I maintain that neither Hannibal nor (I might almost add) any of my predecessors was my equal in strategy; all the world knows that.

Mi. Well, you shall each have your say in turn: the Libyan first.

Han. Fortunately for me, Minos, I have mastered Greek since I have been here; so that my adversary will not have even that advantage of me. Now I hold that the highest praise is due to those who have won their way to greatness from obscurity; who have clothed themselves in power, and shown themselves fit for dominion. I myself entered Spain with a handful of men, took service under my brother, and was found worthy of the supreme command. I conquered the Celtiberians, subdued Western Gaul, crossed the Alps, overran the valley of the Po, sacked town after town, made myself master of the plains, approached the bulwarks of the capital, and in one day slew such a host, that their finger-rings were measured by bushels, and the rivers were bridged by their bodies. And this I did, though I had never been called a son of Ammon; I never pretended to be a god, never related visions of my mother; I made no secret of the fact that I was mere flesh and blood. My rivals were the ablest generals in the world, commanding the best soldiers in the world; I warred not with Medes or Assyrians, who fly before they are pursued, and yield the victory to him that dares take it.
Alexander, on the other hand, in increasing and extending as he did the dominion which he had inherited from his father, was but following the impetus given to him by Fortune. And this conqueror had no sooner crushed his puny adversary by the victories of Issus and Arbela, than he forsook the traditions of his country, and lived the life of a Persian; accepting the prostrations of his subjects, assassinating his friends at his own table, or handing them over to the executioner. I in my command respected the freedom of my country, delayed not to obey her summons, when the enemy with their huge armament invaded Libya, laid aside the privileges of my office, and submitted to my sentence without a murmur. Yet I was a barbarian all unskilled in Greek culture; I could not recite Homer, nor had I enjoyed the advantages of Aristotle's instruction; I had to make a shift with such qualities as were mine by nature.--It is on these grounds that I claim the pre-eminence. My rival has indeed all the lustre that attaches to the wearing of a diadem, and--I know not--for Macedonians such things may have charms: but I cannot think that this circumstance constitutes a higher claim than the courage and genius of one who owed nothing to Fortune, and everything to his own resolution.

Mi. Not bad, for a Libyan.--Well, Alexander, what do you say to that?

Alex. Silence, Minos, would be the best answer to such confident self-assertion. The tongue of Fame will suffice of itself to convince you that I was a great prince, and my opponent a petty adventurer. But I would have you consider the distance between us. Called to the throne while I was yet a boy, I quelled the disorders of my kingdom, and avenged my father's murder. By the destruction of Thebes, I inspired the Greeks with such awe, that they appointed me their commander-in-chief; and from that moment, scorning to confine myself to the kingdom that I inherited from my father, I extended my gaze over the entire face of the earth, and thought it shame if I should govern less than the whole. With a small force I invaded Asia, gained a great victory on the Granicus, took Lydia, Ionia, Phrygia,--in short, subdued all that was within my reach, before I commenced my march for Issus, where Darius was waiting for me at the head of his myriads. You know the sequel: yourselves can best say what was the number of the dead whom on one day I dispatched hither. The ferryman tells me that his boat would not hold them; most of them had to come across on rafts of their own construction. In these enterprises, I was ever at the head of my troops, ever courted danger. To say nothing of Tyre and Arbela, I penetrated into India, and carried my empire to the shores of Ocean; I captured elephants; I conquered Porus; I crossed the Tanais, and worsted the Scythians--no mean enemies--in a tremendous cavalry engagement. I heaped benefits upon my friends: I made my enemies taste my resentment. If men took me for a god, I cannot blame them; the vastness of my undertakings might excuse such a belief. But to conclude. I died a king: Hannibal, a fugitive at the court of the Bithynian Prusias--fitting end for villany and cruelty. Of his Italian victories I say nothing; they were the fruit not of honest legitimate warfare, but of treachery, craft, and dissimulation. He taunts me with self-indulgence: my illustrious friend has surely forgotten the pleasant time he spent in Capua among the ladies, while the precious moments fleeted by. Had I not scorned the Western world, and turned my attention to the East, what would it have cost me to make the bloodless conquest of Italy, and Libya, and all, as far West as Gades? But nations that already cowered beneath a master were unworthy of my sword.--I have finished, Minos, and await your decision; of the many arguments I might have used, these shall suffice.

Sci. First, Minos, let me speak.

Mi. And who are you, friend? and where do you come from?

Sci. I am Scipio, the Roman general, who destroyed Carthage, and gained great victories over the Libyans.

Mi. Well, and what have you to say?

Sci. That Alexander is my superior, and I am Hannibal's, having defeated him, and driven him to ignominious flight. What impudence is this, to contend with Alexander, to whom I, your conqueror, would not presume to compare myself!

Mi. Honestly spoken, Scipio, on my word! Very well, then: Alexander comes first, and you next; and I think we must say Hannibal third. And a very creditable third, too.

XIII
Diogenes. Alexander

Diog. Dear me, Alexander, you dead like the rest of us?

Alex. As you see, sir; is there anything extraordinary in a mortal's dying?

Diog. So Ammon lied when he said you were his son; you were Philip's after all.

Alex. Apparently; if I had been Ammon's, I should not have died.

Diog. Strange! there were tales of the same order about Olympias too. A serpent visited her, and was seen in her bed; we were given to understand that that was how you came into the world, and Philip made a mistake when he took you for his.

Alex. Yes, I was told all that myself; however, I know now that my mother's and the Ammon stories were all moonshine.

Diog. Their lies were of some practical value to you, though; your divinity brought a good many people to their knees. But now, whom did you leave your great empire to?

Alex. Diogenes, I cannot tell you. I had no time to leave any directions about it, beyond just giving Perdiccas my ring as I died. Why are you laughing?

Diog. Oh, I was only thinking of the Greeks' behaviour; directly you succeeded, how they flattered you! their elected patron, generalissimo against the barbarian; one of the twelve Gods according to some; temples built and sacrifices offered to the Serpent's son! If I may ask, where did your Macedonians bury you?

Alex. I have lain in Babylon a full month to-day; and Ptolemy of the Guards is pledged, as soon as he can get a moment's respite from present disturbances, to take and bury me in Egypt, there to be reckoned among the Gods.

Diog. I have some reason to laugh, you see; still nursing vain hopes of developing into an Osiris or Anubis! Pray, your Godhead, put these expectations from you; none may re-ascend who has once sailed the lake and penetrated our entrance; Aeacus is watchful, and Cerberus an awkward customer. But there is one thing I wish you would tell me: how do you like thinking over all the earthly bliss you left to come here--your guards and armour-bearers and lieutenant-governors, your heaps of gold and adoring peoples, Babylon and Bactria, your huge elephants, your honour and glory, those conspicuous drives with white-cinctured locks and clasped purple cloak? does the thought of them hurt? What, crying? silly fellow! did not your wise Aristotle include in his instructions any hint of the insecurity of fortune's favours?

Alex. Wise? call him the craftiest of all flatterers. Allow me to know a little more than other people about Aristotle; his requests and his letters came to my address; I know how he profited by my passion for culture; how he would toady and compliment me, to be sure! now it was my beauty--that too is included under The Good; now it was my deeds and my money; for money too he called a Good--he meant that he was not going to be ashamed of taking it. Ah, Diogenes, an impostor; and a past master at it too. For me, the result of his wisdom is that I am distressed for the things you catalogued just now, as if I had lost in them the chief Goods.

Diog. Wouldst know thy course? I will prescribe for your distress. Our flora, unfortunately, does not include hellebore; but you take plenty of Lethe-water--good, deep, repeated draughts; that will relieve your distress over the Aristotelian Goods. Quick; here are Clitus, Callisthenes, and a lot of others making for you; they mean to tear you in pieces and pay you out. Here, go the opposite way; and remember, repeated draughts.

XIV

Philip. Alexander

Phil. You cannot deny that you are my son this time, Alexander; you would not have died if you had been Ammon's.

Alex. I knew all the time that you, Philip, son of Amyntas, were my father. I only accepted the statement of the oracle because I thought it was good policy.

Phil. What, to suffer yourself to be fooled by lying priests?

Alex. No, but it had an awe-inspiring effect upon the barbarians. When they thought they had a God to deal with, they gave up the struggle; which made their conquest a simple matter.

Phil. And whom did you ever conquer that was worth conquering? Your adversaries were ever timid creatures, with their bows and their targets and their wicker shields. It was other work conquering the Greeks: Boeotians, Phocians, Athenians; Arcadian hoplites, Thessalian cavalry, javelin-men from Elis, peltasts of Mantinea; Thracians, Illyrians, Paeonians; to subdue these was something. But for gold-laced womanish Medes and Persians and Chaldaeans,--why, it had been done before: did you never hear of the expedition of the Ten Thousand under Clearchus? and how the enemy would not even come to blows with them, but ran away before they were within bow-shot?

Alex. Still, there were the Scythians, father, and the Indian elephants; they were no joke. And my conquests were not gained by dissension or treachery; I broke no oath, no promise, nor ever purchased victory at the expense of honour. As to the Greeks, most of them joined me without a struggle; and I dare say you have heard how I handled Thebes.

Phil. I know all about that; I had it from Clitus, whom you ran through the body, in the middle of dinner, because he presumed to mention my achievements in the same breath with yours. They tell me too that you took to aping the manners of your conquered Medes; abandoned the Macedonian cloak in favour of the candys, assumed the upright tiara, and exacted oriental prostrations from Macedonian freemen! This is delicious. As to your brilliant matches, and your beloved Hephaestion, and your scholars in lions' cages,--the less said the better. I have only heard one thing to your credit: you respected the person of Darius's beautiful wife, and you provided for his mother and daughters; there you acted like a king.

Alex. And have you nothing to say of my adventurous spirit, father, when I was the first to leap down within the ramparts of Oxydracae, and was covered with wounds?

Phil. Not a word. Not that it is a bad thing, in my opinion, for a king to get wounded occasionally, and to face danger at the head of his troops: but this was the last thing that you were called upon to do. You were passing for a God; and your being wounded, and carried off the field on a litter, bleeding and groaning, could only excite the ridicule of the spectators: Ammon stood convicted of quackery, his oracle of falsehood, his priests of flattery. The son of Zeus in a swoon, requiring medical assistance! who could help laughing at the sight? And now that you have died, can you doubt that many a jest is being cracked on the subject of your divinity, as men contemplate the God's corpse laid out for burial, and already going the way of all flesh? Besides, your achievements lose half their credit from this very circumstance which you say was so useful in facilitating your conquests: nothing you did could come up to your divine reputation.

Alex. The world thinks otherwise. I am ranked with Heracles and Dionysus; and, for that matter, I took Aornos, which was more than either of them could do.

Phil. There spoke the son of Ammon. Heracles and Dionysus, indeed! You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Alexander; when will you learn to drop that bombast, and know yourself for the shade that you are?

Now, if you have recovered from the effects of Lucian’s scintillating wit, you will notice this is NOT political satire but an attempt at humorous philosophy, and quite heavy handed here. The historical element is slight and inaccurate, nothing beyond an education and a memory being required. As for a source the Romance would suffice, only there do we find any story of Ptolemy being given a commission to take the body to Egypt, not Ammon note.

Macrobioi is now generally not ‘credited’ to Lucian and the nature of his citation of Onesikritos leaves room to doubt the author had read him

[14] Cyrus, king of the Persians in olden times, according to the Persian and Assyrian annals (with which Onesicritus, who wrote a history of Alexander, seems to agree) at the age of a hundred asked for all his friends by name and learned that most of them had been put to death by his son Cambyses. When Cambyses asserted that he had done this by order of Cyrus, he died of a broken heart, partly because he had been slandered for his son's cruelty, partly because he accused himself of being feeble-minded.

It could equally well be that the author who cited the Persian and Assyrian annals supported his view by mentioning Onesikritos’ agreement, otherwise why would the author of Macrobioi say ‘seems to agree’; surely, he would know if he had read him.

Which leaves Lucian’s story of Alexander and Onesikritos’ in ‘How to Write History’

40Any one who is intent only upon the immediate effect may reasonably be classed among the flatterers; and History has long ago realized that flattery is as little congenial to her as the arts of personal adornment to an athlete's training. An anecdote of Alexander is to the point. 'Ah, Onesicritus,' said he, 'how I should like to come to life again for a little while, and see how your stuff strikes people by that time; at present they have good enough reason to praise and welcome it; that is their way of angling for a share of my favour.'

No one has ever suggested that Onesikritos published his book before Alexander’s death, so how would all these people be praising it while Alexander was still alive? Certainly he could not have usurped Niarchos’ title while they were both at Court without a major bust-up. This anecdote must rank alongside that of Aristoboulos

12 ... Aristobulus inserted in his history an account of a single combat between Alexander and Porus, and selected this passage to read aloud to the former; he reckoned that his best chance of pleasing was to invent heroic deeds for the king, and heighten his achievements. Well, they were on board ship in the Hydaspes; Alexander took hold of the book, and tossed it overboard; 'the author should have been treated the same way, by rights,' he added, 'for presuming to fight duels for me like that, and shoot down elephants single-handed.'

Aristoboulos is supposed to have written when 83

. Aristobulus of Cassandreia is said to have lived more than ninety years. He began to write his history in his eighty- fourth year, for he says so himself in the beginning of the work. Macrobioi 22

Since, the voyage down the Hydaspes was in 326 even allowing Aristoboulos 19 more years would have him die seven years before the Battle of Ipsos which he definitely mentioned!

Arr VII xviii
Aristobulus says that he himself heard this story from Peithagoras; and adds that the same man acted as diviner for Perdiccas and afterwards for Antigonus, and that the same sign occurred for both. It was verified by fact; for Perdiccas lost his life leading an army against Ptolemy, and Antigonus was killed in the battle fought by him at Ipsus against Seleucus and Lysimachus.

The conclusion is simple Lucian invented the context and conversation, although the elephant slaying was in Aristoboulos. Lucian’s evidence simply isn’t evidence.

[Taphoi]

In Egypt, Alexander was automatically a god. There was an ancient tradition of deifying pharaohs and Alexander had already been acknowledged as such by the local priests, who were grateful that the new ruler respected their religious practices and had rid them of the hated Persians. Alexander could not be sure of divinisation at the hands of the Macedonians: Curtius 10.5.11 says that the troops had actually refused him divine honours. One of the revisions to modern thinking that is required by the facts is the view that Ptolemy got assigned Egypt and then decided to take Alexander there. What actually happened according to the sources (admittedly the less frequently cited ones) is that Alexander asked Ptolemy to take his body to Egypt and Ptolemy consequently demanded Egypt in the First Division of the Satrapies. The idea that it was the other way round makes no sense whatsoever. The big project for Ptolemy at the time was Alexander's divinisation - not the foundation of the Ptolemaic dynasty. A decade or two later and I am happy to concede that Ptolemy started to get interested in the Dynasty project, but it is an anachronism in the 320's.

Andrew, there are times when you leave me utterly incredulous, and this is one. You've reiterated my comment about deifying pharaohs without actually answering the point I was making - if Alexander thought the only way that he could be guaranteed divine honors was under the Egyptian religion then he would have had to reject his own beliefs in order to accept theirs. (This would also require him to believe that all other pharaohs before him were also gods.) And if he doubted that the Macedonians might declare him a god, what about Ptolemy? If Ptolemy was so absolutely devoted to Alexander and wanted nothing more than to satisfy Alexander's dying wishes, and (this is important) Alexander's actual and only desire was to be made a god, then why not simply ask Ptolemy to declare him a god rather than the more obscure, "take me to Ammon's temple"? Ptolemy could have done that wherever he was, could have seized or been rewarded with any portion of the empire and built a Greek temple to the 'god' Alexander. According to your argument, all Ptolemy's actions were based on his love for Alexander so you must have no doubt that he would have built such a temple. And it would/could have been built in accordance with the religious beliefs of both Alexander and Ptolemy! You might note than when the early Ptolemies started flirting with their own apotheosis it was the Greek gods with which their names (and their wives' names) were coupled, not the gods of the Egyptians.

Also, you've said above, "One of the revisions to modern thinking that is required by the facts..." and then continued by stating the facts as you see them. They're not facts, Andrew. You've merely reiterated your own conclusion based on your own hypothesis - the very thing that is under discussion here!

Best regards,

The hard distinction that you are drawing between Egyptian religion and Greek religion did not exist. As well as the syncretism between Ammon and Zeus, there were syncretisms for the other Olympian gods (Horus = Apollo etc). The Greeks considered that Egyptian gods were variant manifestations of their own gods (the same with Indian and Persian gods too). Therefore the idea that Alexander needed to undergo a "conversion" in the modern sense is anachronistic and specious.

The whole point of divinisation was that it should be accepted by the people. It was pointless for Alexander to declare himself a god or have Ptolemy do so, unless the people went along with it. Alexander cared about his legacy. He wanted to be remembered in legend as another Achilles. In Egypt the culture supported this, but he had reason to suspect that some would try to undermine his legacy in Greece and Macedon. His suspicions were amply validated by subsequent events.

No. I am not saying that my views should be pre-eminent at all. The sources say that Alexander asked Ptolemy to take his body to Egypt. None says otherwise. Obviously, this happened before the First Division of the Satrapies, and yet modern books tend to state or imply that it was pure accident that Ptolemy took Egypt or that he took it for his own sake. They suggest (insofar as they address the matter at all) that Ptolemy somehow retrospectively invented Alexander's requests to justify his actions. This is a perverse position that trys to refute the sources, because they state something inconvenient to modern perceptions. That is what I am complaining about.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

Achilleus was never made a god, he remained a hero; only Herakles and Dionysos were promoted that high, though later Alexander and even Demetrios seem to have gained that status. In 321 there was no established cult so the usage is, as in Homer’s of Achilleus which is normally rendered as ‘Noble’ or some such, 2 above.

Consequently Achilles also obtained divine honours in Epeirus, under the native name of Aspetus.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

The conclusion is simple Lucian invented the context and conversation, although the elephant slaying was in Aristoboulos. Lucian’s evidence simply isn’t evidence.

The simple antidote to this unsubstantiated assertion is to check the various details given by Lucian concerning Alexander in his Dialogues and elsewhere. It will be found that 90% or more are to be found in other ancient sources on Alexander. The others are from lost sources that are otherwise unknown to us. Lucian made nothing up concerning historical details.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

Isn't all of this a bit specious? Alexander couldn't speak before his death and the last thing the Macedonians would have tried to get out of him was where he wanted to be buried. They would have been more interested in the question that does appear to have been asked of him - who was his successor?

Alexander, and the other Macedonians, would have assumed that he would have been given the sort of funeral that he had just given Hephaestion and that he had given Philip. He would have been cremated and then his remains interred in a tomb. This would have been the job of the next king of Macedon to pay for it and legitimise his succession. Alexander's body was on the way back to Aegae to be buried in this manner when it was hijacked by Ptolemy.

Ptolemy, like all the others, wanted to be King of Macedon and this was his declaration of intent. My knowledge of the wars of the successors is a little sketchy, but I believe he tried to marry Cleopatra, Alexander's sister and continually tried to get a foothold in Aegean affairs. If he had intended to remain solely in Egypt, he would have given Alexander's body a funeral and a tomb in Memphis, the city to which he took it. IMO, Ptolemy kept Alexander's body so that he could take it back to MAcedon and give it a world-class funeral as the next King of Macedon.

Because that ambition was not fulfilled, Alexander never got a funeral, and it was left to later generations to build him a tomb in Alexandria where it was more accessible to Greek tourists than Memphis. As far as I am aware, none of the Ptolemies converted to the Egyptian religion nor did they show any interest in Siwah, especially not in taking a valuable asset into the middle of the desert and dumping it where anyone could have stolen it and they couldn't have shown it off. Pragmatism, not romance, reigned.

The Ptolemies performed all the religious functions of Pharaoh diligently. The sources do not say explicitly that Alexander could not speak: they say he was losing his voice, which does not mean that you cannot make yourself understood albeit in a faint whisper. They also state many things that he said whilst dying.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

What actually happened according to the sources (admittedly the less frequently cited ones) is that Alexander asked Ptolemy to take his body to Egypt

Alexander may or may not have asked Ptolemy to take his body to Egypt. It's irrelevant. What matters is that once in Egypt, Ptolemy didn't cremate him.

We know Alexander's views on the proper funeral rites for a man who was loved, honoured and to be worshipped as a God. He demonstrated them to the world: he burnt Hephaistion's body on the largest funeral pyre in history.

Anyone who denied Alexander the honour he gave to Hephaistion, kept his corpse for a reason.

Chris.

If you had burnt the body of a pharaoh in Egypt, the Egyptian priests would have burnt you. It was sacrilege: the pharaoh needed his body for the afterlife - that was the whole point of mummification.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

ἐκ τούτου δὲ καὶ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἐν Ἠπείρῳ τιμὰς ἰσοθέους ἔσχεν, Ἄσπετος ἐπιχωρίῳ φωνῇ προσαγορευόμενος.

Consequently Achilles also obtained divine honours in Epeirus, under the native name of Aspetus.

‘Timas isotheous’ is ‘honours equal to the gods’ or ‘godlike honours’, divine is a poor translation since the Greek makes it clear he is NOT a god but is honoured like one. I tremble around rule statements but....going back to the Greek is a good idea

[agesilaos]

Which leaves Lucian’s story of Alexander and Onesikritos’ in ‘How to Write History’

40Any one who is intent only upon the immediate effect may reasonably be classed among the flatterers; and History has long ago realized that flattery is as little congenial to her as the arts of personal adornment to an athlete's training. An anecdote of Alexander is to the point. 'Ah, Onesicritus,' said he, 'how I should like to come to life again for a little while, and see how your stuff strikes people by that time; at present they have good enough reason to praise and welcome it; that is their way of angling for a share of my favour.'



No one has ever suggested that Onesikritos published his book before Alexander’s death, so how would all these people be praising it while Alexander was still alive? Certainly he could not have usurped Niarchos’ title while they were both at Court without a major bust-up. This anecdote must rank alongside that of Aristoboulos

12 ... Aristobulus inserted in his history an account of a single combat between Alexander and Porus, and selected this passage to read aloud to the former; he reckoned that his best chance of pleasing was to invent heroic deeds for the king, and heighten his achievements. Well, they were on board ship in the Hydaspes; Alexander took hold of the book, and tossed it overboard; 'the author should have been treated the same way, by rights,' he added, 'for presuming to fight duels for me like that, and shoot down elephants single-handed.'


Aristoboulos is supposed to have written when 83

. Aristobulus of Cassandreia is said to have lived more than ninety years. He began to write his history in his eighty- fourth year, for he says so himself in the beginning of the work. Macrobioi 22



Since, the voyage down the Hydaspes was in 326 even allowing Aristoboulos 19 more years would have him die seven years before the Battle of Ipsos which he definitely mentioned!

Arr VII xviii
Aristobulus says that he himself heard this story from Peithagoras; and adds that the same man acted as diviner for Perdiccas and afterwards for Antigonus, and that the same sign occurred for both. It was verified by fact; for Perdiccas lost his life leading an army against Ptolemy, and Antigonus was killed in the battle fought by him at Ipsus against Seleucus and Lysimachus.


The conclusion is simple Lucian invented the context and conversation, although the elephant slaying was in Aristoboulos. Lucian’s evidence simply isn’t evidence.

which bit of this ancient evidence makes the point 'unsubstantiated'? Or are you unaware of what unsubstantiated means ?