Alexander and Achilles

[job]

No less an authority than Arrian (7.14.4) says, in the context of Hephaestion's demise, "I regard it as not unlikely that Alexander cut off his hair over the corpse, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING HIS EMULATION OF ACHILLES, WITH WHOM HE HAD A RIVALRY FROM BOYHOOD." [caps mine, P.A. Brunt's Loeb translation]

[jona]

I know this line, but the question remains: who is speaking? Whose judgment is this? It seems to be Arrian's, which makes his remark simply an interpretation, which is just as valid as any other psychological interpretation. We might as well say that Alexander had a mother complex, or that "pothos" is the best way to describe the man. Interesting, perhaps helpful, but ultimately unprovable.Even if Arrian were quoting one or two contemporary sources, it only proves that Alexander's contemporaries thought that comparing him to Achilles was a fitting way to describe their king. It does not say very much about Alexander himself.I would be happy if Alexander had minted coins with a portrait of Achilles or something like that; but he didn't. Obviously, Heracles, who is on his coins, was more important to him. He also compared himself to Zeus (coins, painting by Apelles), Ammon and Dionysus (a quote by Ephippus which I have not over here). But the parallel with Achilles is simply not attested during Alexander's lifetime.So, I still maintain that (a) there is (as far as I know) no conclusive evidence that the Achilles parallel was made during Alexander's lifetime; (b) if it was, we do not know whether Alexander believed in it or not.I admit that this is not very romantic, and perhaps unsatisfying, but isn't the greatest wisdom to know that one knows nothing?Jona

[dean]

Hello,John, I must admit that the line in Arrian you quote does imply for me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Alexander tried to emulate the hero and not only that but he did it consciously. Also the posterior "sacrifice" made in honour of Hephaestion of the Cossaen tribes- could be paralleled too.On the other thread Jona, you say, while speaking of the entry regarding Peucestes's use of the "sacred shield" from Troy to protect Alexander,
"Please note that exactly this story causes Arrian's indignation (Anabasis 6.10-11) about the unreliability of his sources." In my copy of Arrian(Aubrey de S+¬lincourt 1958) with regards to this episode I find no reason to believe that Arrian questioned the veracity of the account- the details are quite clear and for me convincing- as Arrian even deems it opportune to mention such seemingly trivial points such as "Abreas, one of the picked soldiers, on double pay, mounted a second ladder."As to your affirmation that we don't know whether or not Alexander believed in the parallel- with so many accounts available in practically every source obtainable, is it not a reasonably safe assumption that he did know of it?Best regards,
Dean.

[marcus]

Hi Jona,To be honest, I would have thought it very unlikely that Alexander would *not* have attempted to emulate and indeed surpass Achilles, as he (and everyone else) knew that Achilles was his ancestor. I know this is purely subjective, but surely the temptation would have been just too great. Even if he didn't start the ball rolling, I can just imagine all his hangers-on making the comparison, as soon as he did anything worthy of mention.I'd also point toward his relationship with his tutor, Lysimachos. Isn't it Plutarch who tells us that Lysimachos and Alexander liked to call themselves Phoinix and Achilles?All the bestMarcus

[jona]

Plutarch's sources can not be traced, but the beginning of his biography includes so much nonsense that I am very sceptical about almost everything.What I am arguing is(a) there is no evidence for emulation of Achilles during Alexander's life time. I don't know what this means, but it MAY be significant because other parallels ARE attested (especially Heracles).We also know that people like Callisthenes were quite capable of flattery. So, I want to be critical; the parallel may have been made by his flatterers, but Alexander preferred to be identified with Heracles (who was, after all, the bigger man). I simply postpone my judgment and will, for the time being, not invoke conscious emulation of Achilles as an explanation of Alexander's behavior.Summing up: I agree that he could have likened himself to Achilles, but evidence is late and does not belong to Alexander's life time. Therefore, I hesitate.(b) even if the Achilles parallel belongs to Alexander's innermost circle and closest friends, it still does not prove anything about himself. We simply can not know what he believed in his heart's heart.Which was, of course, to be expected. Neither do we know if his claim to be a god tells something about the way he regarded himself. Personally, I think there were rational reasons to create the cult, as a tool to create unity in a pluriform empire; but those saying that Alexander really believed that he was a god - there are reasonable arguments. We can never know. The same applies to Achilles, and this forces us to be cautious.Jona

[iskander_32]

Alexander surpassed Achilles the day he was born.Achilles for one was a mere myth who achieved only in the way Aragon did in Lord of The Rings.Even in the Myth he was confined to a few deeds at Troy and the defeat of Hector, who in reality never stood a chance.Alexander was never dipped into the river sticks to make him impregnable, so its fare to say Hector might as well throw snowballs at a Tank.Cheronaea made Alexanders acievements more than Achilles, sorry for been down on old Achilles but im trying to seperate fact from fiction to decide which was greater.kenny

[marcus]

Yep, fair enough - hard evidence is a difficult thing.However, although many of the comments you've made about Plutarch are true enough, I think we need to be a little careful about discounting anything he says just because he says it (which is a standpoint you're veering towards, even if you're not there yet ). After all, as Plutarch is basically the only source we have for Alexander's childhood, even though some of the things he says are intended as exempla, it doesn't mean that others are not wholly true - just because we have no corroboration of the Lysimachos/Phoinix comparison in other sources, why should it not be perfectly true?More to the point (on that note) that seems a strange thing to be the subject of later propaganda/spin - maybe it's just me, but the Lysimachos/Phoinix story seems more likely to be true than other heroic emulations that might or might not have been attributed to Alexander.All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Marcus. And even more so, I don't believe Alexander's hangers-on (or flatterers) ever made a comparison without Alexander's participation. Consider also how Alexander used Hephaistion to "suggest" that his inner circle perform proskynesis. Alexander was his own best public-relations man, even though he let it appear that others had come up with words of praise. There's another example from Ephippus, found in Athenaeus again:"Many gathered to see the sight, says Ephippus; proclamations were made which were exceedingly boastful and more insolent than the usual Persian arrogance. -á For among the various proclamations made in particular, a custodian of munitions overstepped all the bounds of flattery and, in collusion with Alexander, he bade the herald proclaim that "Gorgus, the custodian of munitions, presented Alexander, son of Ammon, with three thousand gold pieces, and promised that whenever he should besiege Athens he would give him ten thousand complete suits of armour, the same number of catapults, and all other missiles besides, enough to prosecute the war."The key words here are "in collusion with Alexander." Can we really believe that someone else came up with the idea that Alexander was excelling Achilles' achievements - and Alexander never thought of it himself? And it doesn't come as any surprise to me that Alexander had himself portrayed as various gods on his coins and his portraits, but never as Achilles. The gods were part of his religion (including Herakles who had temples in his name) whereas, to the Macedonians, Achilles was solely a part of their history. If you were going to have yourself portrayed equal in greatness to someone, wouldn't you choose a god? But even having done this, it doesn't mean that Alexander didn't compare himself to Achilles on the way up to becoming the Son of Ammon!Sorry to be repeating myself, but I simply don't believe that hangers-on and/or historians came up with Homeric allusions without Alexander ever having thought of it first. And can you imagine an Alexander who would have kept this thought quiet and not encouraged others to shout about it? I, for one, cannot. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[smittysmitty]

I find it odd, that a personal statement made by Arrian, should be taken as representative of historical fact, and what is particularly disturbing, is that no reference is made to the narrative and context from which the statement is extracted. ItGÇÖs as though people pick and choose whatever information they require, to create their own Alexander! Perhaps not so different to writers of prose in antiquity.The shearing of hair by Alexander at the death oh H can also be found in PlutarchGÇÖs Pelopidas[34]. Interestingly enough, no mention of emulating Achilles is made during this narrative, and is preceded by a similar passage where it is the Thessalian army performing similarly at the death of Pelopidas. The point I wish to raise, is, we cannot be certain whether this display of grief is characteristic of peoples of the time, or reflects some sort of Homeric statement as performed by Achilles. Re: Phoenix/Lysimachus story, it should be noted, it is Lysimachus himself that coins the names, Phoenix, Peleus and Achilles to their respective counterparts and does not imply an action or belief on behalf of Alexander himself. What it does imply (assuming the story to be true), is that Alexander did not mind the comparison.

[marcus]

On the Phoinix business, Smitty, who actually started the business of calling each of them names is surely irrelevant - Lysimachos wouldn't have done it if it had meant nothing to Alexander.Now, one might argue from this that it was Lysimachos who started Alexander off on his emulation etc. of Achilles, but I don't see that it matters whether Lys. or Alex. actually started it. All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

Assuming the story is true, of course it meant something to Alexander. As a child I'm sure he would have got a big kick out of it, but it surely does not mean a pre-destined existance emulating Achilles was in store for him?

[marcus]

Definitely not pre-destined ... but is that what anyone is saying? All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

What is being implied then?I may have missed the point!

[marcus]

I'm getting confused now! :-)The original point (I think) was Jona's, who reckoned that there's nothing to indicate that Alexander consciously emulated Achilles. Any references in, say, Arrian, could just as easily be later authors projecting the emulation on Alexander with the vantage of hindsight.My contention with the Lysimachos/Phoinix story was that there was no reason to doubt its veracity, and that if Alexander's tutor chose to make the comparison when Al was still a child, that either formed his 'determination' to emulate Achilles throughout his life; or it affirmed his existing determination.Whichever of those was the case, it doesn't really matter whether he chose to emulate Achilles himself, or whether his tutor suggested it to him. But I'm not sure that there was ever a suggestion that there was 'pre-destination' in it (unless I missed something).All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

I'd like to insert an only slightly related question here, though it does concern Alexander as Achilles. Though I would love to get a response, I think my chances are thin and I don't want to give this question a thread all of its own.I have an etching by an artist called Francois Perrier (1594 - 1649). He spent much of his life in Rome (and was the teacher of Charles Le Brun) and published several portfolios of etchings of Greek and Roman statues that existed in the city at that time. Many of them he simply named for the place he found them, so this print is called "Alexander en ludo Hortes Burghesian." Actually, it is an etching of a Greek/Roman statue of Alexander as Achilles. I've seen a print by another artist of a different statue, simply entitled Achilles, which has a similar stance, same helmet, and is holding the same stick with a head of a bird (possibly an eagle)on top.The only online site which has a copy of this print is rather poor and the photos are small and fuzzy. If anyone should be interested, go tohttp://www.raremaps.de/perrier.html Scroll way down (about 40 pictures) to the section with two prints on Alexander the Great and check out the one on the right.It was obviously a beautiful statue, but where is it today? Was it destroyed in the last 400 years or so? Or is it hidden in a private collection somewhere? In all the time I have studied Alexander, I have never seen a photograph or anything else regarding this figure. I know that there are many representations of Alexander in the world, but a full size ancient statue like this would surely be known if it were in a museum. Could it really be in a museum, or could it still be standing in the same place in Rome?As I said previously, I'm not really expecting an answer to this. What I really need is a specialized art historian, I suppose. But if I don't ask the question, I will never find out. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann