Alexander's remains

[Taphoi]

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 ?

As far as I can see (you neglect to state it plainly) your stance is that nobody can start to write about a subject until just before they publish their most famous book about it and that "fact" apparently proves that Lucian is making up these stories. It is of course a complete nonsense. There is no reason why Onesicritus should not have started his book before Alexander's death. There is no reason why Aristobulus should not have written about events going on around him whilst Alexander lived.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

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.

Are you trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, Andrew? I am entirely familiar with the religions of the period and the distinction I am talking about did exist. Yes, there were syncretisms with various gods, although the majority of it came about after Alexander. There were, however, major differences between the religions and even in the flourishing period of the Ptolemies the Greeks in Alexandria for the most part worshipped their gods and the Egyptians worshipped theirs. The manner of worship was different, the priesthood was entirely different, the modes of disposing of the dead were different, and the beliefs in the afterlife were different. Serapis was an attempt to put a Greek face on an Egyptian god in an attempt to make him palatable to all and a symbol of sorts for Alexandria. And the deification of Pharaohs was not, repeat not, an accepted part of Greek belief. No Greek of the period actually thought that previous pharaohs hung out with the Olympians. Alexander would have had to do a complete about-face in his beliefs to think that if he was entombed as Pharaoh he would automatically become a god after his death. Have you actually studied Alexander specifically in regard to his religion? He even had them carry him from his deathbed to perform his daily sacrifices to the gods for his people. The man certainly was respectful and open about other peoples' religions, but he also was devout in his own. To say that he didn't believe it was possible to become a god amongst the Greek gods is "an anachronistic and specious argument" to throw that one right back at you.

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.

Of course the people would have "gone along with it". Are you not one of the members here who posted on the thread about a votive offering to Hephaistion "The Hero"? Seemingly they had no problem accepting that. Subsequent events after Alexander's death illustrate power-plays over Alexander's empire and an unwillingness on the part of Perdiccas (?) to empty the coffers by honoring Alexander's last wishes. But there is plenty of evidence about the reverence afforded to Alexander's memory. If Ptolemy had built a temple for Alexander *anywhere*, the Greeks would have come. After Alexander was dead it was an entirely different matter than his request to be deified whilst still living, and, as Marcus said earlier, they even reverenced his armor and his ghost. You seem to think that everything Ptolemy and his son did to honor Alexander's body was for the Egyptians and according to *their* beliefs, and for Alexander himself. It wasn't - it was for the Greeks. Have you read the Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus in Athenaeus? Not an Egyptian god to be seen.

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.

The more trustworthy sources say that Alexander asked for his body to be taken to Ammon. An entirely different affair.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

The sources say that Alexander asked for his body to be taken to Ammon. An entirely different affair.

a) Lucian, the Liber de Morte and Pseudo-Callisthenes all say "Egypt"

And [Alexander] said to Ptolmeos seated near him, "And you, go to Egypt and you shall take care of our body".

b) It is hair splitting to distinguish between Ammon and Egypt in this context - clearly the two destinations were associated and Siwa is part of modern Egypt and adjoined ancient Egypt with the same people and culture and Siwa was part of the Ptolemaic domains

c) If you like I'll adjust my comment to, "The sources say that Alexander asked Ptolemy to take his body to Ammon/Egypt." It is immaterial to my point.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

The sources say that Alexander asked for his body to be taken to Ammon. An entirely different affair.

a) Lucian, the Liber de Morte and Pseudo-Callisthenes all say "Egypt"

I should have said the "more trustworthy" sources.

b) It is hair splitting to distinguish between Ammon and Egypt in this context - clearly the two destinations were associated and Siwa is part of modern Egypt and adjoined ancient Egypt with the same people and culture and Siwa was part of the Ptolemaic domains

c) If you like I'll adjust my comment to, "The sources say that Alexander asked Ptolemy to take his body to Ammon/Egypt." It is immaterial to my point.

As I've already said, there was a temple of Ammon in Macedonia which would have fit the request nicely if "Egypt" is taken out of the picture. And what of all the other points, and my responses?

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

I should have said the "more trustworthy" sources.

My view is that your concept of trustworthiness for Alexander sources is untrustworthy. You seem to believe in Arrian's infallibility, notwithstanding his talking snakes leading Alexander to and from Siwa. You think the Liber de Morte is untrustworthy, despite the fact that it was probably written by Holkias in about 317BC (4.5 centuries before Arrian) and contains hardly anything that can be proved to be false.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

I should have said the "more trustworthy" sources.

My view is that your concept of trustworthiness for Alexander sources is untrustworthy. You seem to believe in Arrian's infallibility, notwithstanding his talking snakes leading Alexander to and from Siwa. You think the Liber de Morte is untrustworthy, despite the fact that it was probably written by Holkias in about 317BC (4.5 centuries before Arrian) and contains hardly anything that can be proved to be false.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Oh, hold a minute there, Andrew. Why you have brought Arrian into this argument is beyond me. Have I said anywhere in this debate, relevant to this discussion, that I believe in Arrian's infallibility? Have I actually said anywhere on Pothos that I believe Arrian is infallible? I think not. Perhaps you really should consider retiring from the mind-reading business? But for the record - because you brought it up - here is Arrian on the talking snakes:

Arrian 3.3.5 Ptolemy, son of Lagus, says that two serpents went in front of the army, uttering a voice, and Alexander ordered the guides to follow them, trusting in the divine portent. He says too that they showed the way to the oracle and back again. But Aristobulus, whose account is generally admitted as correct, says that two ravens flew in front of the army, and that these acted as Alexander's guides. I am able to assert with confidence that some divine assistance was afforded him, for probability also coincides with the supposition; but the discrepancies in the accounts of the various narrators have deprived the story of certainty.

Hmm, as you and I both know well, Alexander's loving "brother" wrote about the serpents in his own book. I sense the reason behind what he wrote and its relationship with Ptolemy's Alexandria but I've no intention of going further off-topic here. I just wanted to note that this passage referenced by you has no bearing on *anyone's* perception of Arrian's infallibility or otherwise.

As for the Liber De Morte and its reliability... Isn't this the same document that as well as recording Alexander's request to be taken to Egypt also says that Alexander tried to drown himself but was disturbed by Roxane? And in it he says, “Ah, Roxane, in granting yourself a brief enjoyment of my company, you have robbed me of immortality. But see to it that nobody hears this from you.” (Which, if there's any truth at all to the story, she apparently did not!) So, according to you, this document is proof that Alexander wanted his body to be taken to Egypt so he could become immortal. And yet this trustworthy piece also says that Alexander tried suicide (and would have become, according to his beliefs, a memoryless 'shade' wandering around Hades) presumably so that his body would have disappeared and everyone would have believed he'd gone to join the gods. If you say both statements must be true because of the reliability of the document then your argument about pharaohs and Alexander's "only way that he could achieve immortality" is brought into question. If you say one of them isn't true then the veracity of the document is brought into question.

And, by the way, and separate from my comments above, I don't trust the entirety of this document because of the obvious ex post facto politicizing. The discussions about who actually wrote the document don't factor into my opinion. Rhodes anyone?

Best regards,

[Paralus]

It is also a pity that she has gone with the idea that Ptolemy saw the corpse of Alexander as a political symbol to bolster his rule (which is an entirely modern and anachronistic notion). And indeed the history (e.g. Arrian's Events after Alexander) is that Ptolemy's seizure of the corpse was influential in deciding Perdiccas to attack Ptolemy rather than defend Ionia against Antipater.

Two things here: Alexander's corpse (and his legacy) as a political symbol and its seizure by Ptolemy as influential in deciding Perdiccas to attack Ptolemy rather than defend Ionia against Antipater.

Firstly, the political legacy of Alexander as a talisman of legitimacy in the Successor period is very clear. And indeed the history (e.g. Arrian's Events after Alexander) is that Arrhidaeus defied Perdiccas in taking the king's body to Egypt rather than to where Perdiccas had wanted it taken. One might well ask why possession of the corpse was so important to Perdiccas?

Other source attestations are manifold. Already mentioned is device used by Eumenes during his command troubles in Susa (where, incidentally, the Macedonians had little problem worshiping or making obeisance [προσεκύνουν] to Alexander as to a god [θεὸν]). One might as well note the very many arguments for legitimacy by those whose positions were the gift of the dead conqueror (Peucestas, Aristonus, Seleucus....). The chiliarch Perdiccas, attempting to strengthen his position, ostentatiously arranged the king's throne and arms in the first stage of the Babylonian settlement even placing the signet ring upon it. The "loving half brother", Ptolemy, would afterwards propose collegiate rule around this very same throne (seemingly forgetting he'd be all that distance away in Egypt). In the politics of empire power-plays, Alexander's legacy was an extremely important lightening rod of legitimation.

Secondly, Photius' summary of Events after Alexander is very little more than a sketchy summary of the contents of these ten books which cover five years. Diodorus 18, by comparison, is a veritable "War and Peace". In Photius' extremely contracted summary there is no room for elucidation. Here Antigonus persuades Antipater and Craterus to march on Asia and Perdiccas marches on Egypt. There is no background (aside from Perdiccas' dynastic marital intrigues) as to why he did this or why Eumenes was at the Hellespont. For that one must turn to the far more fulsome material of Diodorus (18.21.6):

Perdiccas, gathering his friends and generals, referred to them for consideration the question whether it was better to march against Macedonia or first to take the field against Ptolemy. When all favoured defeating Ptolemy first in order that there might be no obstacle in the way of their Macedonian campaign, he sent Eumenes off with a considerable army, ordering him to watch over the region of the Hellespont and prevent a crossing; and he himself, taking the army from Pisidia, proceeded against Egypt.

You cannot have read Diodorus closely otherwise you would understand that this decision was taken before Arrhidaeus conspired to defy Perdiccas and take the body to Egypt which occurred the following spring. At this stage, as Diodorus' fuller text clearly demonstrates, it was purely a strategic decision and the "body snatch" was not in any way "influential in deciding Perdiccas to attack Ptolemy rather than defend Ionia against Antipater". Eumenes, at the time of the corpse abduction, was on his way to the Hellespont with a stopover in Sardis for the gifting of Cleopatra as even Photius' wretched dot point summary shows. One would also never guess from Photius' shorthand of Arrian that a triumvirate alliance, including Ptolemy, had also been put into place prior to Perdiccas deciding upon what action and where to take it the following spring. This, of course, will have no bearing on Perdiccas' decisions.

That Ptolemy, in taking the corpse, acted only out of "love" or respect for his putative half brother is naive. The taking of the corpse was clearly carried out after the alliance made with Antipater and Craterus to end Perdiccas' ambitions and, if Arrian is correct (cf Paus. 1.6.3; Strabo 17.1.8), Perdiccas had intentions - clearly political - of his own for the corpse. Perdiccas seemingly fell foul here of "an entirely modern and anachronistic notion". That Ptolemy had no ambitions outside of this desire to please his dead king in the 320s is also naive. The "loving half brother" seems to have wasted precious little time in overrunning Coele-Syria and imprisoning the appointed satrap (Laomedon) in the immediate aftermath of Triparadeisos (320).

I also find interesting the assertion that Ptolemy "demanded" Egypt. Presumably, then, he was in a strong enough position in the immediate aftermath of Alexander's death to make such demands. Strange, then, that he seems to have demanded the province along with a distrusted hyparch - Cleomenes. A man in a such a position of strength to demand a satrapy of choice might have made certain there were no watchful eyes appointed with him I'd have thought. Unfortunately the most fulsome of our sources on the Babylonian settlement describe no such position of strength for the "loving half brother". Strange also that in a situation where a bastard son of the deceased and a mentally deficient half brother is put forward that a fully competent and "loving half brother" was not ever mentioned.

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.

The culture that deified Dionysos and Heracles (not to mention the "saviour gods" of Antigonus and Demetrius) and had no problem with the hero status of Hephaestion and others did not support Alexander wanting "to be remembered in legend as another Achilles"? Anyone looking for a definition of the word "specious" may just have found it.

[agesilaos]

As far as I can see (you neglect to state it plainly) your stance is that nobody can start to write about a subject until just before they publish their most famous book about it and that "fact" apparently proves that Lucian is making up these stories. It is of course a complete nonsense. There is no reason why Onesicritus should not have started his book before Alexander's death. There is no reason why Aristobulus should not have written about events going on around him whilst Alexander lived.

I can see things really do have to be spelled out in capital letters; your synopsis, does of course make a nonsense but only by completely misunderstanding the point.

Your position must be that Aristoboulos published his book 24 years, at least, after finishing it unless we presume that he chose to eschew his previous method of contemporaneous notes, fully written up after this alleged re-buff from Alexander. All for the sake of seeing whether Peithagoras’ predictions would come to pass, even though he could have had no inkling that the seer would make them; maybe Aristoboulos was clairvoyant too.

It is clear to me that this is a fiction to illustrate a point, so when presented with a story of a private conversation between Onesikritos and Alexander about a book he has clearly completed and is very proud of, but was still reading Book 8 to Lysimachos post 305 (if one chooses to believe that story) and which no ancient critic ever has any praise for; I reckon my scepticism is well founded. And was Onesikritos so close to Alexander that the flatterers would praise him to gain Alexander’s favour? I think not.

It is never a good tactic to misrepresent an argument in order to refute it when the author can so readily answer the ploy.

I hesitate to accuse you of deliberate falsification but my screen shows Amyntoros’ post as ending

The more trustworthy sources say that Alexander asked for his body to be taken to Ammon. An entirely different affair.

And your quote

amyntoros wrote:The sources say that Alexander asked for his body to be taken to Ammon. An entirely different affair.

There is no note of Amyntoros having edited her post, creative editing on your part or a failure of the site; the latter I trust.

Your reply is, as ever revealing of your attitudes to the sources;

a) Lucian has Alexander wounded among the Oxydracae rather than Malli to be ‘covered in wounds’, has Alexander march on Issus ‘where Darius and all his myriads were waiting for [him]’, he imagines temples built to him during his lifetime in Greece, posits that the claims of divinity aided his conquests, and more mistakes; but he is not writing history.
b) The Liber de Morte contains the baleful portent of a child whose lower limbs are a boar, a wolf, a lion and a dog, if I remember correctly, and you scoff at Arrian’s mention of Ptolemy’s talking snakes!
c) As for the Armenian pseudo-Kallisthenes, you presumably accept the trees of life the Indian monsters the letters to Olympias and Aristotle and the whole gamut of tosh that makes it a Romance.

Of course not, but you seem to think that choosing the more plausible bits from evident confections of fiction is a better basis from which to proceed than from relying upon more sober histories like Arrian’s. Perverse is not the word.

[Taphoi]

It is also a pity that she has gone with the idea that Ptolemy saw the corpse of Alexander as a political symbol to bolster his rule (which is an entirely modern and anachronistic notion). And indeed the history (e.g. Arrian's Events after Alexander) is that Ptolemy's seizure of the corpse was influential in deciding Perdiccas to attack Ptolemy rather than defend Ionia against Antipater.

Two things here: Alexander's corpse (and his legacy) as a political symbol and its seizure by Ptolemy as influential in deciding Perdiccas to attack Ptolemy rather than defend Ionia against Antipater.

Firstly, the political legacy of Alexander as a talisman of legitimacy in the Successor period is very clear. And indeed the history (e.g. Arrian's Events after Alexander) is that Arrhidaeus defied Perdiccas in taking the king's body to Egypt rather than to where Perdiccas had wanted it taken. One might well ask why possession of the corpse was so important to Perdiccas?

Other source attestations are manifold. Already mentioned is device used by Eumenes during his command troubles in Susa (where, incidentally, the Macedonians had little problem worshiping or making obeisance [προσεκύνουν] to Alexander as to a god [θεὸν]). One might as well note the very many arguments for legitimacy by those whose positions were the gift of the dead conqueror (Peucestas, Aristonus, Seleucus....). The chiliarch Perdiccas, attempting to strengthen his position, ostentatiously arranged the king's throne and arms in the first stage of the Babylonian settlement even placing the signet ring upon it. The "loving half brother", Ptolemy, would afterwards propose collegiate rule around this very same throne (seemingly forgetting he'd be all that distance away in Egypt). In the politics of empire power-plays, Alexander's legacy was an extremely important lightening rod of legitimation.

Secondly, Photius' summary of Events after Alexander is very little more than a sketchy summary of the contents of these ten books which cover five years. Diodorus 18, by comparison, is a veritable "War and Peace". In Photius' extremely contracted summary there is no room for elucidation. Here Antigonus persuades Antipater and Craterus to march on Asia and Perdiccas marches on Egypt. There is no background (aside from Perdiccas' dynastic marital intrigues) as to why he did this or why Eumenes was at the Hellespont. For that one must turn to the far more fulsome material of Diodorus (18.21.6):

Perdiccas, gathering his friends and generals, referred to them for consideration the question whether it was better to march against Macedonia or first to take the field against Ptolemy. When all favoured defeating Ptolemy first in order that there might be no obstacle in the way of their Macedonian campaign, he sent Eumenes off with a considerable army, ordering him to watch over the region of the Hellespont and prevent a crossing; and he himself, taking the army from Pisidia, proceeded against Egypt.

You cannot have read Diodorus closely otherwise you would understand that this decision was taken before Arrhidaeus conspired to defy Perdiccas and take the body to Egypt which occurred the following spring. At this stage, as Diodorus' fuller text clearly demonstrates, it was purely a strategic decision and the "body snatch" was not in any way "influential in deciding Perdiccas to attack Ptolemy rather than defend Ionia against Antipater". Eumenes, at the time of the corpse abduction, was on his way to the Hellespont with a stopover in Sardis for the gifting of Cleopatra as even Photius' wretched dot point summary shows. One would also never guess from Photius' shorthand of Arrian that a triumvirate alliance, including Ptolemy, had also been put into place prior to Perdiccas deciding upon what action and where to take it the following spring. This, of course, will have no bearing on Perdiccas' decisions.

That Ptolemy, in taking the corpse, acted only out of "love" or respect for his putative half brother is naive. The taking of the corpse was clearly carried out after the alliance made with Antipater and Craterus to end Perdiccas' ambitions and, if Arrian is correct (cf Paus. 1.6.3; Strabo 17.1., Perdiccas had intentions - clearly political - of his own for the corpse. Perdiccas seemingly fell foul here of "an entirely modern and anachronistic notion". That Ptolemy had no ambitions outside of this desire to please his dead king in the 320s is also naive. The "loving half brother" seems to have wasted precious little time in overrunning Coele-Syria and imprisoning the appointed satrap (Laomedon) in the immediate aftermath of Triparadeisos (320).

I also find interesting the assertion that Ptolemy "demanded" Egypt. Presumably, then, he was in a strong enough position in the immediate aftermath of Alexander's death to make such demands. Strange, then, that he seems to have demanded the province along with a distrusted hyparch - Cleomenes. A man in a such a position of strength to demand a satrapy of choice might have made certain there were no watchful eyes appointed with him I'd have thought. Unfortunately the most fulsome of our sources on the Babylonian settlement describe no such position of strength for the "loving half brother". Strange also that in a situation where a bastard son of the deceased and a mentally deficient half brother is put forward that a fully competent and "loving half brother" was not ever mentioned.

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.

The culture that deified Dionysos and Heracles (not to mention the "saviour gods" of Antigonus and Demetrius) and had no problem with the hero status of Hephaestion and others did not support Alexander wanting "to be remembered in legend as another Achilles"? Anyone looking for a definition of the word "specious" may just have found it.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to write essays in response to your rhetoric. People will have to spot the non sequiturs themselves. Suffice to say, you have overlooked the fragments of Arrian's Events after Alexander, which do say that the seizure of the corpse steeled Perdiccas in his decision to attack Ptolemy.

Best regards,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

I hesitate to accuse you of deliberate falsification but my screen shows Amyntoros’ post as ending

The more trustworthy sources say that Alexander asked for his body to be taken to Ammon. An entirely different affair.

And your quote

amyntoros wrote:The sources say that Alexander asked for his body to be taken to Ammon. An entirely different affair.

There is no note of Amyntoros having edited her post, creative editing on your part or a failure of the site; the latter I trust.

I believe she did edit her post after I replied to it. I did not edit my quote.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Antigonus, in the meantime, took refuge with Antipater and Craterus in Macedonia, informed them of the intrigues of Perdiccas against him, declaring that they were directed against all alike. He also described the death of Cynane in such exaggerated terms that he persuaded them to make war on Perdiccas. Arrhidaeus, who kept the body of Alexander with him, contrary to the wish o Perdiccas, took it from Babylon by way of Damascus to Ptolemy the son of Lagus in Egypt; and though often hindered on his journey by Polemon, a friend of Perdiccas, nevertheless succeeded in carrying out his intention........

Perdiccas, setting out from Damascus to make war upon Ptolemy the son of Lagus, reached Egypt with the kings and a large force. He made many charges against Ptolemy, who publicly cleared himself, so that the accusations appeared ill-founded. Perdiccas, notwithstanding the opposition of his troops, decided to carry on the war. He was twice defeated, and, having treated those who were inclined to go over to Ptolemy with great severity, and in other respects behaved in camp more arrogantly than became a general, he was slain by his own cavalry during an engagement. After his death Ptolemy crossed the Nile to visit the kings, upon whom he bestowed gifts and treated them with the utmost kindness and attention, as well as the other Macedonians of rank. At the same time he openly showed sympathy with the friends of Perdiccas, and did all he could to allay the apprehensions of those Macedonians who imagined they were in peril, so that at once and ever afterwards he was held in great esteem.

No ‘steeling’ here, in fact if Perdikkas charged Ptolemy with the abduction of the corpse it is difficult to see how he could have ‘publicly cleared himself’, this charge was certainly not ‘ill-founded’.

This is Photios, however and I think there is a palimpsest of a portion of the original which may have a fuller story; I can’t find it online but somewhere I have a photocopy (not of the original); it would save time if people could post the supporting quotes instead of using vague allusions, especially if the text is not readily available.

Glad to hear Amyntorosgate is just a site glitch.

[amyntoros]

Unfortunately, I don't have time to write essays in response to your rhetoric. People will have to spot the non sequiturs themselves. Suffice to say, you have overlooked the fragments of Arrian's Events after Alexander, which do say that the seizure of the corpse steeled Perdiccas in his decision to attack Ptolemy.

It would be a sad day for Pothos if all long and referenced responses on this forum are dismissed as rhetoric and accusations are made about non sequiturs without any elaboration whatsoever. If I don't have time to give a proper response I choose not to make one rather than attempting to demonstrate that the post in question is not worth a reply. Not to mention that, in this particular case, Paralus did not overlook the fragments of Arrian's Events After Alexander. They are right there in his post.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

Antigonus, in the meantime, took refuge with Antipater and Craterus in Macedonia, informed them of the intrigues of Perdiccas against him, declaring that they were directed against all alike. He also described the death of Cynane in such exaggerated terms that he persuaded them to make war on Perdiccas. Arrhidaeus, who kept the body of Alexander with him, contrary to the wish o Perdiccas, took it from Babylon by way of Damascus to Ptolemy the son of Lagus in Egypt; and though often hindered on his journey by Polemon, a friend of Perdiccas, nevertheless succeeded in carrying out his intention........

Perdiccas, setting out from Damascus to make war upon Ptolemy the son of Lagus, reached Egypt with the kings and a large force. He made many charges against Ptolemy, who publicly cleared himself, so that the accusations appeared ill-founded. Perdiccas, notwithstanding the opposition of his troops, decided to carry on the war. He was twice defeated, and, having treated those who were inclined to go over to Ptolemy with great severity, and in other respects behaved in camp more arrogantly than became a general, he was slain by his own cavalry during an engagement. After his death Ptolemy crossed the Nile to visit the kings, upon whom he bestowed gifts and treated them with the utmost kindness and attention, as well as the other Macedonians of rank. At the same time he openly showed sympathy with the friends of Perdiccas, and did all he could to allay the apprehensions of those Macedonians who imagined they were in peril, so that at once and ever afterwards he was held in great esteem.

No ‘steeling’ here, in fact if Perdikkas charged Ptolemy with the abduction of the corpse it is difficult to see how he could have ‘publicly cleared himself’, this charge was certainly not ‘ill-founded’.

This is Photios, however and I think there is a palimpsest of a portion of the original which may have a fuller story; I can’t find it online but somewhere I have a photocopy (not of the original); it would save time if people could post the supporting quotes instead of using vague allusions, especially if the text is not readily available.

Glad to hear Amyntorosgate is just a site glitch.

And Arrhidaeus, who guarded the body of Alexander, led it, against the orders of Perdiccas, from Babylon via Damascus to bring it before Ptolemy, son of Lagus, in Egypt. Despite the opposition of Polemon, an associate of Perdiccas, Arrhidaeus managed to achieve his design… The partisans of Perdiccas, Attalus and Polemon, sent out by him to prevent the departure, returned without succeeding and told him that Arrhidaeus had deliberately given the body of Alexander to Ptolemy and was carrying it to Egypt. Then, even more, he wanted to march to Egypt in order to take away the rule from Ptolemy and put a new man in his place (one of his friends) and retrieve the body of Alexander. With this intention he arrived in Cilicia with the army.

With all due respect, what would have saved time would have been if Paralus had found the palimpsest fragment before writing an essay denying its existence.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

Oh, hold a minute there, Andrew. Why you have brought Arrian into this argument is beyond me. Have I said anywhere in this debate, relevant to this discussion, that I believe in Arrian's infallibility? Have I actually said anywhere on Pothos that I believe Arrian is infallible? I think not. Perhaps you really should consider retiring from the mind-reading business?

This is interesting, but it would be more convincing, if you cited a few of Arrian's errors - just for the record.

Thanks in anticipation.

Andrew

[amyntoros]

Glad to hear Amyntorosgate is just a site glitch.

Yes it was, and a strange one to boot. Plus I just replied to this one, hit submit, and it's nowhere to be found. What is going on here? Anyway ... as far as Amyntorosgate is concerned, Andrew is correct. I didn't, however, edit my post after the fact. As I usually do when a post is finished I let it sit before submitting, and I came back to it to read it through and make any small changes or additions I deemed necessary, typos, etc. And I hit the preview button each time, just to see how it read on the forum. At some point I must have hit "Submit" without realizing it (or I had two tabs up with the same info), and I continued to make small changes. When I finally (I thought) submitted it I discovered that I now had duplicate posts in the thread. I tried to delete the second one but the software wouldn't let me, saying that I could not delete posts which had already been replied to - curiouser and curiouser. I checked both posts and saw that there were only a couple of small changes - unimportant ones I thought - so I deleted the first post instead, something the software in its wisdom allowed me to do without objection! Only afterwards - when you pointed it out, in fact - did I realize that Andrew had quoted from one of my sentences where I *had* made a change. Sorry for the confusion. It wasn't my intent.

Best regards,