Alexander, the Invincible by Peter G. Tsouras

[jan]

While this book sheds no new light on Alexander except the point that he had had a photographic memory, I recommend it. It is concise, compact, and intelligently written, using the military point of view to understand Alexander. Nothing new here, but a great read, and wonderful new illustrations.

[marcus]

Blimey - what evidence does Tsouras give for Alexander having a photographic memory?To be honest, that sounds akin to Weigall's "stabbing pain in the lower back"...All the bestMarcus

[Nax]

It's another one for the mythology page!!!

[Link]

Also akin to the voda with the vino theorists;-)
There is also one around here and there that he had a slice of lemon with his Indian chae (tea) when he was sick, and burnt his lips on the lemon;-)Interesting. Maybe Tsouras' focus is in his pictures and we imagine Al's fotografik memory embedded with those images...yeah, dreamy stuff. Maybe it's a good tourist's book.Cheers

[smittysmitty]

Perhaps being a little unkind to Jan and Weigell!
Justin Book XII.13 ' Taking up a cup,he suddenly uttered a groan while he was drinking, as if he had been stabbed with a dagger'......Diodorus 17.117.1 'There he drank much unmixed wine in commemoration of Heracles, and finally, filling a huge beaker, downed it at a gulp.[2] Instantly he shrieked aloud as if smitten by a violent blow'... cheers!

[dean]

Hello,Yes- the idea of a photographic memory- that seems like an interesting deduction- it of course leaves the question as to how it was deduced.I guess I would have to buy the book to find out unless you can tell me JanBest regards,
Dean.

[jan]

Hi Dean,I honestly believe that Peter G. Tsouras is using modern terminology to describe Alexander, and when I first read it, it made me wonder too. That is why I mentioned it. He has a couple of other statements that made me think. He objects to the idea that Alexander actually did to Batis what Achilles did to Hector, stating that none of the commanders ever mention it at all. On that note, I appreciated his judgement call, because I just can't believe it either. If one is to imitate Achilles to the letter, why not do it to Darius instead of Batis, and why a eunuch, a fat one, yet to boot? But that is a subject for debate. One thing stood out to me besides the photographic memory was that when he was hit on the back of the head and rendered unconscious, Weigall states that he was also hit on the base of the skull and the neck. Tsouras says he was hit in the throat, a most improbable hit if you ask me. That made me really sit up and wonder if an editor or proof reader goofed somewhere. But the word throat really made me take notice, and I wondered if this was an error or a purposeful and deliberate choice of words.The book is inexpensive, $20, I believe. It is so well condensed but thorough, that if one has a library already, there is no need to purchase this one. But for beginning readers of Alexander, it is a fair and just composition.

[jan]

Thanks, Smitty. I was hoping that someone would be able to verify which source had indicated a stabbing pain in the back. I appreciate your supplying this information. I pretty much trust Weigall as he was a most respected authority on Egyptology, and history. He does call Alexander a butcher, and is the only author I have read yet who has had that much nerve. He does also try to vindicate Alexander, as he is not doing a hatchet job on him, but he is uncompromisingly forthright in his assertions, and usually sprinkles footnotes everywhere. I suspect that much has been lost in translation over the ages. I wonder at how much both Arrian and Curtius edited as they translated Greek into Latin. At any rate, his book still contains more anecdotal information than most. That is why I like it so much.

[marcus]

Hi Jan,It sounds as if Weigall takes the same viewpoint as Worthington and, to some extent at least, of Bosworth (in calling Alexander a butcher). I've always assumed that he wrote his book some time ago, which would make his stance fairly surprising - but less so if he wrote later than around 1985!All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Hi Jan,Alexander's being hit in the throat happened, if memory serves me correctly, during the sack of Cyropolis in 329BC, near the Jaxartes. I don't recall whether it is specifically stated in the sources that it was a neck shot, although it is attested that he lost his voice as a result (and therefore a neck shot is distinctly implied).All the bestMarcus

[xxx]

I am guessing he is making that assertion based on the fact Alexander could call his soldiers' names specifically - not an easy thing when you have so many, but in a culture that apparently didn't write much until after the death of this King, a good memory was necessary

[xxx]

Hi Marcus:In Plutarch's essay on Alexander which he wrote before his long work on Alexander, he claims that the King was struck in the neck with a fighting stick during the northern campaigns. The sources are rather unclear on the Cyropolis injuries - claiming he was struck in either the head or neck or both. The sources are also unclear on the type of injury suffered, claiming both loss of voice and impaired vision.Regards,Tre

[marcus]

Hi Tre,Thanks for the clarification - it's always a problem when I don't have the books with me to check. I was sure that Plutarch mentioned it and I know that Arrian does.All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

The problem that I have with Weigall is that he extrapolates with insufficient data. I did have a vague memory that some of the sources said Alexander cried out, as if in pain (thanks Smitty). They do not, however, give the location of the pain, yet Weigall states that it was in the back! He has drawn his own conclusions and then presented them as *fact* - and without giving references. Once this is realized, it casts doubts on any other claims the author may make.Best regards,Linda Ann

[xxx]

I think also Hammond/Fox postulate pain located in the back too in reference to what they think is a symptom of malaria.