pothos.org

marcus wrote:

athenas owl wrote:And yet, here the thing, how many of the other companions died of "heavy drinking"...well, there were those fellows that froze to death after Calanus's funeral...but that's what happens when you pass out under the table outside on a cold night..

We'll never know, because the historians weren't interested in whether the rank and file Macedonians died of over-indulgence ...

ATB

This is true...the historians only seemed to be interested in the rank and file when it suited them (same as it ever was, that...).

athenas owl wrote:

marcus wrote:

athenas owl wrote:And yet, here the thing, how many of the other companions died of "heavy drinking"...well, there were those fellows that froze to death after Calanus's funeral...but that's what happens when you pass out under the table outside on a cold night..

We'll never know, because the historians weren't interested in whether the rank and file Macedonians died of over-indulgence ...

ATB

This is true...the historians only seemed to be interested in the rank and file when it suited them (same as it ever was, that...).

If may offer one other comment here, my interpretation of Plutarch isn't that the Macedonians froze to death after Calanus' funeral, but that it was the drink that killed them. Both the Loeb and the Penguin translation read "And of the rest, according to Chares, forty-one died of what they drank, a violent chill having set in after their debauch. I took it to mean that the chill was within and not without, but I could be wrong. Is there another source with more detail?

Advance apologies here to you, the-accursed and others if I do not get around to replying in more detail to recent posts. I will try to do so - you know I've always got something to say - but I'm not sure if I can find the time for composing (my usual) longer responses at the moment. Things are very hectic on the home front and then I leave Wednesday for a conference which will keep me away from the computer until the following Monday.

Best regards,

jan wrote:that Alexander appears to be in before finally being embalmed makes it appear that it was arsenic, and I believe that maybe Paul Doherty did write something to that effect also in his book on the death of Alexander. Correct me if I am mistaken about that. But I did think that only arsenic poisoning would be likely if his body had remained so well preserved for six days before finally being cut into. Yet, some others have offered the idea that he could have been in a coma instead of dead. Keeps the mystery going, doesn't it?

Let's not forget about strychnine poisoning which had similar symptoms as malaria, typhoid and possibly arsenic. It also is believed to have had the same effect on the body after death, not decaying right away.
I'm not sure if it was me you were thinking of regarding the coma. I had pondered if he may have been in a coma for a couple/few days. He may have appeared dead to the physicians back then if his heart rate and breathing had slowed considerably. It has happened in more recent years where someone was thought dead but was not.

amyntoros wrote:IMO, the mere fact that there was no period of anarchy after the death of Philip, that no attempts on Alexander's life took place in the early years of his reign means that Alexander had successfully taken care of all his political rivals...

As for those generals close to Alexander, he had eventually replaced most of the old guard with his choice of young guns who benefited considerably from Alexander’s friendship, trust, and largess.

There was “restlessness” after Philip’s death – mostly away from court and involving subject peoples. That which might have occurred inside the court was neutered by Antipater’s quick work and Alexander’s “compact” with those who mattered, particularly Parmenion. Alexander’s opposition was unblinkingly erased from the playing table.

All of which winds back to Agesilaos’ observations regarding Antipater. The stories of his complicity in Alexander’s death are the product of Diadoch propaganda mills and come after the event. That they might have been thought to take root and find acceptance does, though, provide a cogent pointer to how far Antipater’s stocks had seemingly fallen by the time of Alexander’s death. That will, of course, happen when you have a corrosive concoction of ambition and hate – Olympias – to share Macedonia with. I think there was little doubt that the “Old Rope” was for it had he reached Babylon whilst Alexander was still alive.

As for his generals, I think Athena’s Owl might be closer to the truth. I believe that they were quite fed up with the constant expanding of the frontiers. At this stage they most likely felt that it was time to sit back and enjoy all that largesse for a bit. Did they murder him to do so? I don’t think so.

All Macedonians may have “drank like fish” or not all. What we are told is that Alexander and many of his officers did. Not all: the attendance lists vary but Alexander is a part of every description; he is the subject of the story after all. The sources remark upon Alexander’s drinking and the increase in that drinking and those remarks are not only limited to the “Vulgate” so as to be conveniently consigned to some moral theme and so dismissed. The details leading up to his death, related by Arrian, are eloquent enough. There will have been more but they are not germane to the story being told. Regardless of a reviewer’s view of Bosworth’s rendition of the Clietus murder the facts – not in dispute – are that Alexander was fawned over with sedulous flattery; Alexander was drunk; Clietus was as bad if not worse and that in a fit of alcoholic indignation Alexander ran Clietus through with a dory or a sarisa.

As Arrian remarks prior to Clietus’ murder, one of Alexander’s court “innovations” was to adopt the barbarian habits in relation to the consumption of alcohol:

Anab. IV.8.2
There had been some pretty heavy drinking (another innovation – in drink, too, he now tended to barbaric excess)…

This excess becomes more obvious as the narrative rolls forward until, prior to his death, we have Arrian noting that he drank until “well into the night” or drinking “far into the night”. This is occasionally broken up with a “little to eat” and a “rest” after which he resumes drinking. Plutarch, his discomfiture bursting through his narrative, feels compelled to explain this away as Alexander sitting long over a cup conversing (not necessarily drinking of course) with his guests who, it seems, must have had a fondness for drink and talk. What then follows this - Alexander often sleeping until midday or even the next night - unfortunately gives the game away. The cup was presumably a krater.

My reading of Arrian’s commendatory comment on his hero’s drinking is that Alexander’s “barbaric” habits in relation to alcohol lead him to be drinking more than the average Macedonian – king or otherwise. Thus the heavy drinking was a result of Alexander tending to “barbaric excess” in this matter – another of the king’s “innovations” in court procedure.

I believe that Alexander contracted a disease – plenty of mosquitos around Babylon and the marshes in summer – and that his physical state, not helped by running his cups from night into day, did not allow him to overcome it.

amyntoros wrote:If may offer one other comment here, my interpretation of Plutarch isn't that the Macedonians froze to death after Calanus' funeral, but that it was the drink that killed them. Both the Loeb and the Penguin translation read "And of the rest, according to Chares, forty-one died of what they drank, a violent chill having set in after their debauch. I took it to mean that the chill was within and not without, but I could be wrong. Is there another source with more detail?

You are correct, I believe. I didn't comment on it myself because it wasn't relevant to the pithy point I wanted to make ... but thanks for "closing the circle".

ATB

I find myself confessing to untold numbers of "drinking parties" myself, it is the thing to do in the fishing culture of the PNW..and I mean things like six packing (being sent 6 shots of alcohol as a "token" of admiration, for example) or challenge...not to mention just getting downright fubar...and yet in the 30 years I have lived in "the life" and having attended many a party or just going to bars where people were falling down drunk on high octane spirits I have yet to know of anyone that drank themsleves to death (well a few have, but it was long term and the liver did them in or the falling down the ladder to the boat or some other accident or altercation)...though I have known of a couple that did indeed die of a violent chill, so to speak, when they passed out outside in an Alaskan winter...or even an Oregon winter..it was the exposure that got them. And the funeral of Calanus was during the winter on the Iranian Plateau...or in the Bampur Basin.

So I guess, that I find it hard to believe that mass consumption of wine, even strong wine could kill so readily.... I am no longer participating in the parties, they are for the young folks. But they weren't/aren't infrequent one-offs...but a regular part of the culture. Where else does one get to boast and tell heroic tales of narrow escapes, over and over again...

As Arrian remarks prior to Clietus’ murder, one of Alexander’s court “innovations” was to adopt the barbarian habits in relation to the consumption of alcohol:

Quote:
Anab. IV.8.2
There had been some pretty heavy drinking (another innovation – in drink, too, he now tended to barbaric excess)…

I have always found that Arrian remark odd...because it seems to disregard the Macedonian heavy drinking that as I pointed out above led to Philip trying to kill his own son at a party...

And the barbaric excess, I think, might have been an innovation all right, a Macedonian innovation introduced to Persia, however (kidding)...not that the people of the Persian Empire didn't drink to excess, either, but that reputation is handed down to us by Greek writers, certainly not objective viewers of the "enemy". That line fron Arrian, and some others, were, I believe part of his wanting to "excuse" Alexander...here "blaming" it on "barbaric excess"...when the Macedonians were known for their own "barbaric excesses" in the first place, at least to the Greek mind.

And was it an innovation for Alexander personally? Or was the innovation the mood of some of his generals and him...bogged down in upper Iran? Alcohol certainly can exacerbate that. As seen previously at Philip's wedding...

I am not "apologising" for Alexander, I sincerely, based on experience with a lot of strong alcohol being consumed on a regular basis by people around me, think that a people used to the drink don't react like that...the violent chill is peculiar...Arrian never struck me as someone who had been part of a palace culture or even understood that. by his time, lond dead world.

Not to mention the axe-grinding going on.

There could be one difference, though, I'll admit...this was after the Gedrosian march..who knows what effect that march had on the survivors...weakened constitutions...ulcers and ailments from the privations and lord knows what they ate or drank...again, this may have been something that contributed to Hephaistion's death...not fully recovered. He was dead in less than a year..

So I am not apologising for Alexander's drinking, or his Macedonians. I do think that by Sogdia and Bactria in 328, the mood had changed, though. Persepolis...the palaces had been looted months before...Alexander intended to burn that palace (did he burn the city? Where then did Peucestas have his capital? If the entire city was burnt.)

They had been there for months, and before they left, they torched it in revenge for Athens. Did the torching actually happen at a party. Could be...why not. "We're drunk! Let's torch this puppy NOW instead tommorrow liked we planned..yeeehaw! (or whatever the Macedonian or Greek counterpart might have been).

I just don't believe that Alexander or his Macedonians were drinking more, we just hear about it becuase it was leading to unhappy events...it's the events that make the headlines. And folks being how they are sought to explain/blame the unhappy events...here Arrian (or whoever he got the story from) blaiming on some "Perisan innovation"...

athenas owl wrote:That line from Arrian, and some others, were, I believe part of his wanting to "excuse" Alexander...here "blaming" it on "barbaric excess"...when the Macedonians were known for their own "barbaric excesses" in the first place, at least to the Greek mind.

Nothing of the sort I’m afraid. The context is clear: excess drinking and the excess is “barbaric” in custom. A custom that Alexander has adopted as Arrian makes plain. Your notion of “blaming it on ‘barbaric excess’...when the Macedonians were known for their own ‘barbaric excesses’ in the first place, at least to the Greek mind” is, to my mind, sophistry.

The fact of the matter is that the drinking is remarked upon. This is not because it is unremarkable rather, in fact, that it is remarkable. It is different to what would be normal. That Arrian would know little of the “court norms” of the time is largely irrelevant: his stated major sources, Aristobulus and Ptolemy had, one suspects, a passing familiarity.

The statement of Arrian is, as quoted, condemnatory of Alexander’s court; not the “barbarians”.

The notion that Greek mores apply here is nonsense. We are speaking of a Romanised Greek writing well after the events and in a far different time. More to the point, he is re-writing Macedonian source material (for the greater part). This is no Theopompus, a city state Greek contemporary with Philip, railing against Macedonian “baseness”.

There is little point in going into “chauvinism” or any “white man’s burden”. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. No mercy even unto the “sick” in India. Indeed the reverse applies in your aside:

athenas owl wrote:...though is what we read here, another inflation of numbers? How big were the Indian Armies, the Paersian Armies, the Indian cities, really?

Forget the Helleno-centric Persian numbers: for Greeks it is never enough to beat a decent Persian army; the numbers must always run to hundreds of thousands or even millions. Your statement with respect to the Indus civilisation is simply a backdoor way of reducing the Indian slaughter related in the extant source material by reducing them to whatever size fits. Villages I suspect.

One wonders why Alexander bothered.

Perhaps you might avail yourself of the excellent Scientific American “special” which included a detailed article onthe culture, riches and urban history of these cities.

athenas owl wrote:I find myself confessing to untold numbers of "drinking parties" myself, it is the thing to do in the fishing culture of the PNW..and I mean things like six packing (being sent 6 shots of alcohol as a "token" of admiration, for example) or challenge...not to mention just getting downright fubar...and yet in the 30 years I have lived in "the life" and having attended many a party or just going to bars where people were falling down drunk on high octane spirits I have yet to know of anyone that drank themsleves to death (well a few have, but it was long term and the liver did them in or the falling down the ladder to the boat or some other accident or altercation)...though I have known of a couple that did indeed die of a violent chill, so to speak, when they passed out outside in an Alaskan winter...or even an Oregon winter..it was the exposure that got them. And the funeral of Calanus was during the winter on the Iranian Plateau...or in the Bampur Basin.

So I guess, that I find it hard to believe that mass consumption of wine, even strong wine could kill so readily....

From this website:

Mechanisms of alcohol poisoning
Alcohol depresses nerves that control involuntary actions such as breathing, the heart beat, and the gag reflex (prevents choking). A fatal dose of alcohol will eventually stop these functions. After the victim stops drinking, the heart keeps beating, and alcohol in the stomach continues to enter the bloodstream and circulate throughout the body.

As a result, the following can happen:

• Victim chokes on own vomit
• Breathing slows, becomes irregular, stops
• Heart beats irregularly or stops
• Hypothermia (low body temperature) leads to cardiac arrest
• Hypoglycemia (too little blood sugar) leads to seizures

Even if the victim lives, AOD can lead to irreversible brain damage. Rapid binge drinking (which often happens on a bet or a dare) is especially dangerous because the victim can ingest a fatal dose before becoming unconscious.

We know that the Macedonians were heavy drinkers to begin with, and the fact that this was a drinking competition makes it likely that incredible amounts of wine must have been consumed – IMO, enough to cause alcohol poisoning. And wouldn't hypothermia symptoms have been interpreted as "violent chills" by the ancients?

Best regards,

I should think that any shaking unaccompanied by fever would be diagnosed a 'chill', maybe someone better acquainted with Hippokrates could comment. I think the hypothermia is contingent on being in a cold environment, as is the case here so it is moot whether it is the weather or the booze that kills you; I spent a couple of weeks in the Lancashire winter sleeping it off in the woods on campus with no more than a few blankets for cover and whilst I confess you do notice the drop in your core temperature on awaking it clearly was not fatal. I dare say it was colder there and these men fell asleep uncovered with no one in a sober enough condition to offer help.

Re the 'barbaric drinking' contra Paralos doesn't Athenaeus tell of the Macedonian habit of drinking neat wine and lots of it? As a subject nation of the Persians they had acquired many Persian habits long before Alexander's expedition, reading Wiesehoefer's 'Ancient Persia' one is struck by the number of institutional parallels (subject of another thread when I re-read it and collate these impressions).

That the comment IS from a Greek perspective and IS anti Alexander would make me tend to think that Arrian has picked it up from one of his minor sources. I would suggest the pamphlet 'On the Deaths of Hephaistion and Alexander' by Nicobule*(?) or some other Greek (curse of the drink, memory loss) which from his description of their ends we can be fairly sure he had read. Quellenforschnung!

*Ephippos of Olynthos, Doh!

From which source Arrian has taken it is indecipherable. Possibly Chares but we do not know. Whomever it was - originally - must have observed it. That Arrian chose to record it of his hero indicates to me that he found the description remarkable and consistent with later events (cups running into day and then into night). It also reads as a comment by Arrian himself ("in this he now tended to ...").

The Macedonians did indeed have their wine neat. Contemporary city state Greeks note this and their "decadent" behaviour - Theopompus deploring Philip's court being one such notable description. that does not mean that all behaved the same. The remark in Arrian is clear: this was a barbarian excess that Alexander had adopted. It must have been noted more than once else Arrian would likely, I suspect, have passed over it. It is used, in this context, to partially explain Alexander's deplorable murder of Clietus. I would surmise that there were more references to it that have not survived into Arrian's finished work.

As it stands though, there is no doubting the description of Alexander's binge drinking during his final days. Justin has him running his cups from night to day to night and Arrian allows that Alexander drank at one party, went to another; took a short rest and started again and then repeated the procedure. I think we can all read that for what it is.

Of course lets not forget what Plutarch said, that Alexander didnt drink that much as people thought, possibly wanting to argue with the other view of other writters. When he said that he didnt drink that much he meant that he didnt drink all the time, rather than in festivities and parties, and of course towards the later years a lot more.

Alexander drunk a lot the night he became sick. However the symptoms he had for the next days were not all due to heavy drinking. The drinking may had just contributed to his body being weak during an illness, but if it was poisoning it didnt have anything to do.

The Macedonians drunk the wine neat. The funny thing is that we all drink the wine neat today. Of course the drunk a lot more.

Stathi, your unstinting defense of a now national hero is admirable. Unfortunately it is somewhat misplaced. You must go a little further than Plutarch’s opening line. What he wrote was:

To the use of wine also he was less addicted than was generally believed. The belief arose from the time which he would spend over each cup, talking than in drinking, always holding some long discourse, and this too when he had abundant leisure. For in the stress of affairs he was not to be detained, as other commanders were, either by wine, or sleep, or any sport, or amour, or spectacle.

As if Epaminondas, Pericles or his father Philip pressed on with “the turps” whilst ignoring the “stress of affairs”. Spare me. Of course Alexander attended to the rolling campaign when “in theatre”. Any commander does.

Just to maker certain that the reader has not missed Plutarch’s abject excusatory rationalisation of his hero’s alcohol consumption, he makes sure to repeat the excuse:

When it was late and already dark, he would begin his supper, reclining on a couch, and marvelous was his care and circumspection at table, in order that everything might be served impartially and without stint; but over the wine, as I have said, he would sit long, for conversation's sake.

Unfortunately he administers the iceberg to his Titanic excuse with the closing line:

After the drinking was over, he would take a bath and sleep, frequently until midday; and sometimes he would actually spend the entire day in sleep.

That a young king, in full fighting fettle, would need to sleep all day after sitting long “over each cup” for the sake of conversation is, I’m afraid, a dead giveaway. This coming Saturday I will sit long, in conversation, over each pint from the keg on my front lawn in celebration of fifty years. The fact that I will likely not rise until lunch or after on Sunday will have, I suspect, about as much to do with the conversation over those pints as did Alexander’s sleeping all day have with his conversations over his cups.

You got it wrong here Michael. It's not a defence. It's just another oppinion, Plutarch's oppinion, to bring balance to the views that we have on Alexander from all of the ancient writters. Whether or not he is right or wrong i dont know. But we cannot see only the one side. And i dont think Plutarch here says that Alexander didnt drink, but that he sometimes drunk a lot when there was a conversation or a feast that went all night long. But he says that at least at the early years, he was not an alcoholic. Nor do i believe that he was later on. He drunk a lot. That's it.

After a long and interesting interview some years ago with one of the Secretary of the Society of Macedonian studies in Thessaloniki, questioning her regarding these death theories, she agreed that his death was likely 'hastened by malice' (i.e. poison either tainted water or other poisons that would render his already weakened condition impossible to recover from.) So...based on that..I go with the poison theory in my novel Shadow of the Lion.

I just got done watching a very interesting one hour special on the Science channel named " Alexander the Great Murder Unsolved". These people took a year to research all aspects of this topic. Was Alexander murdered? Poisoned? They had scientist, doctors, psychiatrist, detectives, and historians working together. While we will never know for sure how Alexander died, I found what they had to say very interesting and well researched.
They looked at illnesses, and poisoning as well as health issues he made have had due to his injuries and lifestyle. One of the things I previously thought could have been the culprit, strychnine poisoning was ruled out for the symptoms they read from different sources. The people working on this came to an agreement that White Hellebore had a hand in Alexander's death. They feel Alexander wasn't murdered because it wasn't the Macedonian way to poison, they would have just did like they had his father, by sword/dagger. They concluded that Alexander was in weakened health either due to an illness, weakenss from his previous injuries and combined with depression from Hephaestion's death.
Now the interesting part about the Hellebore. It turns out that back in those times Hellebore was used to "flush" the system of toxins/ailments. Being Alexander wasn't in the greatest health due to the previous reasons I listed his body was weakened and didn't take to the treatments so well. They also added that maybe since Alexander was anxious to move on to more conquering that he may have wanted to rush his treatment meaning heavier doses of the Hellebore which had deadly effects. So accidental poisoning? Has this been discussed before?

Has anyone else seen this special?
I am interested in what all of you think of this theory.