pothos.org

For anyone that can be bothered readin this LoL, sorry its so long!
It is not so much that I disagree that ATG had offered sacrifice at Troy, rather the descriptions of what occured there and how in turn they have been interpreted (particularly by moderns) that I beg to differ.Where I disagree, is that it has been proposed ATG paid particular reverence to Achilles and in many respects is portrayed obsessively emulating this character. I would argue, the relevance behind such a visit to Troy (if it happened at all) served some political agenda rather than a display of ATG's piety and reverance for his 'dynastic originator hero'. It would seem more appropriate he pay hommage to such a shrine in order 1) to further endorse his ancestral claim, strengthening the uncontested claim the Argeads had over the Makedones and 2) reafirming to non-Makedones the Argead claim to be of Hellenic origin.I'll attemp a historiographic account to support what I'm say, hope it makes sense! LoLThe passages we concern ourselves with relate to the Makedones and ATG's arrival in Asia Minor.Justin: ' He also sacrificed at Troy, at the tombs of the heroes who had fallen in the Trojan War.'Diodorus: 'He visited the tombs of the heroes Achilles, Ajax, and the rest and honored them with offerings and other appropriate marks of respect.'Both accounts are brief but present the traditional belief that ATG visited Troy and paid his respects to all those that had fallen, with no particular reference of significance towards Achilles.Plutarch: ' Once arrived in Asia, he went up to Troy, sacrificed to Athena and poured libations to the heroes of the Greek army.' ( Not unlike the previous two sources)Plutarch chooses to introduce the following also. 'He anointed with oil the column which marks the grave of Achilles, ran a race by it naked with his companions, as the custom is, and then crowned it with a wreath.' This may very well have occured but we are unaware from where Plutarch draws this information and is puzzling as to why Justin nor Diodorus include it in their own narrative.lets move on to perhaps our best source on ATG, Arrian.We consider Arrian to be our most reliable source on ATG due to his openly discussed approach to the material available to him. He makes us aware that indeed there are many accounts of ATG life, much of which is 'rubbish' hence he chooses to follow the most reliable accounts and those, as we are all aware, o

We consider Arrian to be our most reliable source on ATG due to his openly discussed approach to the material available to him. He makes us aware that indeed there are many accounts of ATG life, much of which is 'rubbish' hence he chooses to follow the most reliable accounts and those, as we are all aware, of Ptolemy and Aristobulus. The reason they are most reliable is because they are primary sources of information, that is, they were there at the time.lets continue.as I'm not too familiar with internet etiquette I'll use the * key to highlight what I consider significant.*It is generally believed* that Alexander sailed from Elaeus to the Achaen harbour, himself at the helm of the admiral's ship, and that half way over he slaughtered a bull as offering to Poseidon and poured from a golden cup into the sea to propitate the Nereids.There is a further*tradition*that, fully armed, he was the first to leave the ship and set foot on Asian soil, and that he built an alter on the spot where he left the shore of Europe and another where he landed on the other side of the straight, both of them dedicated to Zeus, the Lord of safe landings, Athena, and Heracles.(re. the weapons he exchanged from the Temple of Athena preserved from the Trojan War)
These are *supposed* to have been carried before him by his bodyguard when he went into battle.He is also *said* to have offered sacrifice to Priam on the altar of Zeus Herceius, to avert his anger against the family of Neoptolemus, whose blood still ran in his own veins.*One account* says that Hephaestion laid a wreath on the tomb of Patroclus.*another*(account/story i.e) that Alexander laid one on the tomb of Achilles,calling him a lucky man in that he had Homer to proclaim his deeds and preserve his memory. What is particularly evident from the narrative is Arrian is drawing this information from a variety of sources, and is not very conclusive as to whether or not they are factual accounts.
The prevelance of opening comments such as "it is said",it is 'tradition', 'it is believed' etc, all amounts to hearsay and no first hand account.

What is perhaps even more disturbing is the silence of both Ptolemy and Aristobulus, our primary sources, during this narrative. So why does Arrian include these accounts into his life of ATG?Directly after the narrative in question, Arrian explains why. 'No prose history, no epic poem was written about him; he was not celebrated eve

Directly after the narrative in question, Arrian explains why. 'No prose history, no epic poem was written about him; he was not celebrated even in such choral odes......blah blah
And that is why I venture to claim the first place in Greek lierature.....blah blahArrian rambles on about why he ventures to present the world with the greatest account of the greatest man the world has ever known. He wishes to do for Alexander what Homer did for Achilles. Now the point being, in my opinion, it would appear such narrative is not 'History' but rather it being 'Literary embelishment'. Arrian is quite happy to introduce unsubstantiated accounts, as perhaps all the sources were. We shouldn't blame Arrian, or for that matter any of our sources, as I'm sure it was a writing style that was particularly popular at the time. I mean to say, why would you write anything if you couldn't somehow incorporate Homer, the Illiad, it was a guaranteed best seller if you could.I don't know how this will read to you, cause I sure can't be bothered reading over it again to see if it makes sense. I wont even touch on the idea of a shrine still existing several hundred years later let alone, shields, swords etc that could still be functional!cheers!

Oh yeah, so I've had my say, now why do you think it's history?

Although this a commonly held view by scholars, it is actually illogical. To assume everything written about Alexander assumed not to be contained in Ptolemy or Aristobulous (based on Arrian's account)is not historical is about as illogical as assuming everything in Ptolemy and Aristobulous is correct and we know they contradict each other. Arrian does point out from time to time when he thinks a particular logos is untrue, but at best it's his won prsonal opinion, much as what is contained on the Forum.One has to be very careful of source criticism. Ptolemy writes with a protective view toward the King, yet even though Aristobulous is oft criticized as a flatter, his account often sounds more credible on certain issues. A for instance would be the death of Callisthenes. I don't see anything 'wrong' about the Troy story that would make me believe it was untrue. Whether or not the shield carried by Peukestas was the actual shield of Achilles is immaterial as to whether the story is true or not.

What you say may be well and true, but the point remains, why do you think its history?Is it simply you see nothing wrong with the Troy story? Because it is written, therefore it is!I have always been lead to believe the study of the Classics should at least devlop ones skills and enable them with the ability to analyse, question, argue and learn.Not to say you are incorrect, you may very well be right in what you believe, but I'd still like to know why you belive the particular episodes discussed constitute history.

Hi Smitty,I tried to post the first part of a reply to this, but for some reason I couldn't.However, your post(s) demand a much fuller answer than I would have given this morning, so I shall work on a proper answer and post... when I've done so.Nothing like a challenge! :-)All the bestMarcus

Ditto - I can't seem to post either!

llll