Descendants to Alexander the Greath

[abm]

"But I think you CAN interpret his "restraint" beyond just "restraint". I can't imagine, all things considered & all people considered, that Alexander would've wanted to leave ANY kid behind."That's a good point, but I don't see a link with imposing modern values. as for the matter itself, we shouldn't forget that Alexander didn't know he would die at 33, so there was no reason to hurry. Besides, Herakles was probably born in 327, when Alexander was 29, which isn't that late I think. It has also been argued that Alexander had good reasons not to marry in Macedon before leaving for Asia.By "fact" I mean an event, and anyhow, I don't see how a moral interpretation could be a fact. Of course, ancient authors certainly committed errors, but one cannot try to reconstruct the past by always saying our sources are wrong, thus without any further arguments than a feeling of doubt, I don't think it's sound to dismiss those facts. i'm aware, however, that in that way we will believe erros of ancient authors, but unfortunately I see no other way."family lines were important not only to the Romans but to their historical interest "I never denied that, what I meant was that as these children were no longer of political relevance, it was no longer necessary to mention them, as I explained already more fully in my reply to Linda."Yet they still put Arridaios forth. & kept Alex 4th alive for 14 years, so there could've been political leverage in having ANY kid of Alexander's around"This requires quite a long answer actually, but I'll try to keep it short (a lot of important details will be lost). According to the most frequently held view (and the most plausible to my mind), the generals wanted to chose Alexander IV, not yet born at the time, because they could establish their power in the interregnum and if it would prove to be a girl, they could gain even more time. The soldiers, however, for variuous reasons disapproved of this choice and forced the generals to co-elect Arrhidaios. Now that these two were kings, it was not evident to have them killed, since the argeads were popular with the people. However, when the diadochoi had become powerful enough to think about establishing their own dynasties they had to secretly do away with the last Argeads, Alexander IV and Kleopatra, in order to be able to assume kingship themselves.regards,abm

[abm]

"I just don't think thats the case for everyone. I actually enjoy looking at the sources & looking at alternative possibilities BASED on what we know & what we don't know, but what we know about people then & now."So do I, but in the end you have to do something with it. Sometimes that means admitting that we really don't know, but sometimes we can know things, although never a 100% certain, of course. So I think we actually agree here, but don't really understood each other quite well."So do i but itys obvious that interpretations CAN differ even from the same sources."Of course, and they often do differ, and I do reckon with that, but sometimes I dismiss one interpretation and agree with another one, as in the case of Herakles, where I really can't see how it's a sound interpretation to deny that he was a son of Alexander's. That does not mean that I'm 100% certain he was, but that I think he was, as far as we can know; you shouldn't keep taking my use of "proven" too literal.regards,abm

[abm]

"But WHY? Is it possible its because they didn't think he was Alexander's son & was put forth by nearchus for his own interests? They seemed to jump at Arridios & Roxanne's kid quick enough- maybe Statier'as too but we'll never know"As I already explained in my other post, Alexander IV was simply the most interesting choice for the generals because some thought that their personal ambitions were best served with that. This was mainly the case for Perdiccas, but the resistance of the soldiers forced them to agree on something and that was it. Herakles was of interest to Nearchus' ambitions, because he was a relative of his since the Susa marriages. However, no one else thought they could get much personal power out of Herakles' kingship and thus did not support it. Moreover, if we may believe Curtius, the soldiers immediately showed strong disapproval of Nearchus' proposal, thus it would not have been easy to champion Herakles' case. The disapproval of the soldiers need not mean that they didn't believe he was Alexander's son; they didn't like a half Asian king anyway. Arrhidaios was the soldiers' choice because he was the only possible fully Macedonian candidate within the royal family and because the generals did not chose him."Why would he be Improsoned during Alexande's life? He wasn't a baby by the time Alexander died, if he WAS Alexander's"He wasn't imprisoned during Alexander's lifetime, but he probably was immediately after. Being born around 327, he was only 4 when Alexander died, and even if he was a little older, he could not have done more than playing some of the games discussed in another post here, which certainly was not worth mentioning for the Alexander-historians whose accounts we possess."LOL you're so funny. No, I don't think its a beautiful story, but I DO think WE add a LOT to it as WE want. I just don't see Heracles parentage a proven like you do. & I think some of the macedonians didn't see it either, which is WHY he was not in the running at Alexander's death"I have answered these things above and in other replies and I'm very glad to hear that I can at least provide some entertainment.regards,abm